Saturday, 27 July 2019

    
Loved the Islanders Date Outfits? Buy at ISAWITFIRST.COM
Nah. There are enough clothes ATM. We can search ebay and Oxfam online (or in store) and other charity shops if we don't have enough in our wardrobes.
Many clothes are made by people working tortuous hours, being paid so little they can barely feed themselves, and our planet is being destroyed. "The value of unused clothing in wardrobes has been estimated at around £30 billion. It is also estimated £140 million worth of clothing goes into landfill each year." Fast fashion isn't worth it.
Charity shops have enough good clothes (I'm aware you have to search through naff things) - and we can help people who are seriously suffering when we shop.
personal choice. I love Up cycled things but most do not. Just like veganism and vegetarianism, believe in it, do it but don’t try to push it on to others.....they will follow their paths/choices. 
Quokka-Raffi Kojian-CIMG6317.JPGHow am I "pushing"? I'm commenting, as we all do. We both know that o have no power whatsoever to change your actions. But bear in mind that countless impoverished people ARE forced to suffer because of sweatshops and the impact of environmental destruction.
And upcycling, since you mention it, isn't at all necessary. Charity shops have enough barely worn or brand new items - have you not looked? We don't even have to go out - Oxfam sells through it's website, and they and many other charities also sell through eBay (as do many individuals having a clear out, obvs). I find it thrilling to know, when I buy an item of clothing, that an impoverished family will receive dozens of meals; or an income producing farm animal; or school supplies, etc, because I bought from Oxfam.


Surely you should report if the case is successful, not only when a case is brought? What I've heard about this case so far suggests that, whilst the perpetrator is evil, the Church itself isn't to blame.
I hate how so many people now associate Christianity with the very opposite of what Christ did and taught, because of predators like the individual in this^ case (though as other news has shown, there's sex abuse in all sectors) ๐Ÿ˜ 
I desperately hope that the victims find comfort, as much as one could; and that changes are made to prevent this in future.
But it's nonsensical that so many people in our culture today reject Christ entirely because of the failings of others.
   
"We cling to a national image that is generations out of date. We think we’re outsiders. Provincial even. This image needs a refresh,"
"Needs"? Humanity NEEDS for fewer people to fly around the globe. It's entirely unnecessary for a fulfilled life and makes a serious contribution to planetary destruction.
   
Alok Sharma appointed Secretary of State for International Development
"We will work across the whole of government to deliver Brexit and make sure UK aid is tackling global challenges that affect us all."
"tackling global challenges that affect us all"? No, the purpose of Foreign Aid is to help the world's very most impoverished people, not us, at all. Simply being in the UK, we're living far, far more comfortably than the majority of humanity. Centuries of theft and corruption have made our nation wealthy at expense of others (it's still going on - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries ) Aid is NOT for our benefit. And I'm not a Remainer, but why on Earth are you mentioning Brexit?
   
The fatal, hateful rise of choking during sex
how did strangling ever become normalised?
I blame porn - which is also impacting some men's expectations of womens' bodies and, in turn, women's self esteem; some people' ability to function normally in everyday life and relationships; some children sexually abusing other children; and yet it's become well accepted by our society.
or, you know, some women just like what they like
Even if women thought that they wanted it (or their partners thought that they did) porn will still be the primary reason that it's become so normalised, which was the question posed. How many women, prior to the mainstreaming of porn, asked to be choked, do you suppose? Porn has imposed on people's minds various sexual practices that they wouldn't have wanted to engage in, and because porn interferes with the brain - making higher levels of stimulation necessary for arousal, normal sex seems boring to more and more people, such that they're increasingly likely to try dangerous things.

Under police protection after banning pork? You mean thugs riled up by pages like yours might attack playschools in protest at the pork ban?
thugs? So expressing dissatisfaction with new alien rules is an attack that only thugs do? 
"expressing dissatisfaction" could be fine - but protesting outside playschools simply because kids won't be given pork, to an extent that police get involved, is thuggish. 
but protesting is expressing dissatisfaction. You people don't like the opinion of majority, so you call the ones who disagree "thugs" and "nazis".
I don't call people Nazis. And I certainly don't call everyone who opposes Islam a thug, I'm saying that behaviour which leads to police being called may be thuggish. 
Modern history is very clear about which groups are fans of attacking children. See Manchester Arena bombings, epidemic child rape gangs in the UK, numerous rapes of German children at swimming pools, Moscow nanny beheading child, migrant school bus driver in Italy threatening to kill 50 children. But do keep your head in the sand while you're not personally affected. 
I'm deeply concerned about some followers of Islam - but that's a non sequitter. Muslims differ from each other as mcuh as we do, there's no logic in lumping them all together. 
Human individuals who are Muslims simply by birth, and who truly believe that God wants them to avoid pork, are in my opinion misled, but not in fact linked to the evil nutters who've carried out bombings and child abuse. Just as you aren't to be judged by the actions of Levi Belfield or Harold Shipman. And since terrorist attacks have been mentioned, note that most terrorism in the US in the last decade has been perpetrated by white supremacists - it's them who've been carrying out mass shootings.
   
Up to 150 migrants feared dead after boat capsizes off coast of Libya
Who the frack finds this funny? With all due respect, are you too unintelligent to realise that migrants are just as human as Brits, or just too evil?
Have you any idea of the poverty and conflict these people are fleeing? Has it not occurred to you that life would have to be unbearable for a person to leave everything and risk their life in a dinghy? This is what it is to be "spoiled" - even if your wealth is entirely average in comparison to other Brits, you have such a cushy life that you disregard the suffering of people elsewhere and display blatant cruelty.
you do realise that you have no idea of the poverty. They are economic migrants not refugees.
What do you think "economic migrant" actually means? Again, why do you think that they leave everything and risk their lives in dinghies? And how do you know that they aren't rufugees anyway?
  
Lucifer-in-a-black-robe had a voting record that could hardly be described as extreme.
If his opponents called him Lucifer-in-a-black-robe, why were witches protesting his appointment? I find it bizarre how abortion supporters proudly embrace evil whilst simultaneously calling their opposition evil.
File:Acrobates pygmaeus 2.jpgYou may indeed find that bizarre, but that's merely because you can't disentangle your views from your religious fantasies. And to be clear, you are welcome to those fantasies- you just aren't welcome to force others to live by them.
When did I mention religion? What "fantasy" exactly do you think I believe in? What exactly am I "forcing" on who? I'm just typing. Why does one person have the right to force another person through a vacuum suction tube, or to force their limbs off of their body with surgical tools?
pro choice is not evil. Those trying to force rape victims to carry their rapist’s seed are evil 
It's literally 1% of abortions, according to Planned Parenthood's own data, so Wanda Iris Kore is making an unrepresentative argument. What about the other 99%? On what grounds exactly have you determined that it's not evil to support the tearing up of tiny humans, whilst it is evil to oppose it?
you do understand that embryos and fetuses are not people . They are potential people. It’s not a child yet just like an egg is not a chicken.
"just like an egg is not a chicken"?
Yikes - with all due respect. A chicken's egg, that you buy in a supermarket, has not been fertilised. It's comparable to, oddly enough, a human egg, which is unfertilised and gets flushed down the toilet with menstruation, and no one protests. A foetus, human or chicken, has a complete genome (unlike an egg) and that genome means that it is on course to grow into a fully sized adult so long as it isn't starved or slaughtered. By the end of the first trimester, the human foetus has all of its organs, and has brain waves and touch sensation. How do you define "child" which you're so certain that it isn't? Medical textbooks have long referred to the unborn as children on some occassions, and foetus is simply latin foor offspring. Whatever you want to call it, it's an innocent human being.
   
BoJo only decided at the last minute to support Leave, and had previously said that it wouldn't be his preference to leave. I've not read up on all the cabinet yet, but Gavin Williamson, for one, was a Remainer.
Should our priority for ministers not be that they truly desire to make things better for human beings, rather than their stance on the EU?

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders - Black babies make up only 14% of the infant population, yet make up 30% of all infant deaths.
Obviously, this is awful beyond words - but I'm intrigued, what are your thoughts on the many black babies who die elsewhere in the world (ultimately because of the centuries of global injustices that have made Western nations wealthy)?
Apologies for the whataboutism, I'm certainly not suggesting that the issue of racial disparity in infant mortality rates in the US shouldn't be addressed, it just seems odd that, as someone who cares about those in poverty, you seem never to highlight the world's very most disadvantaged, who - $for$ -we have the power to make the biggest difference to.

go straight to h3LL with your whataboutism
LOL, why? Do you think that we should all just forget about the world's poorest people, who are in agonising poverty at our expense?
Do you even believe in hell?

Babies Else where in the world are not a concern when you can't even help the babies in your own country. If this cannot gain traction in one country, how would you save them all around the world. we can exactly fix policies in countries that aren't ours so....
You can save babies elsewhere in the world, by supporting NGOs that do amazing things with our donations and Foreign Aid - far, far, far more than the same $amounts can do here. And if we enable children to grow up fully nourished and with an education, they'll become adults who CAN fix policies.
Politicians can campaign for action on multinational corporations that exploit people in poverty, and for more Foreign Aid.
If they care about poor people being helped, they could also use their position of visibility to remind us, whilst our media leads us to forget about human beings elsewhere, that we have the power to save and transform lives - for example, $6 can feed a starving child for a month, a child who's just as human and precious as a child who lives where we do. Such reminders would be useful in a society where it's normal to spend that amount on a trip to Starbucks and to feel dissatisfied with our own lives because we see the lifestyles of celebrities oin Instagram etc.

 
You're honestly arguing that doctors should be forced to tear up tiny humans? You really think that that's a noble humanitarian cause?
I'm not disputing cases where abortion is genuinely vital to save the mother - but here those cases account for only several % of abortions - what's the situation regarding reasons for abortion in Argentina?
I assume you'll never have your own children, and instead will adopt one of the countless number of unwanted children. Because you care so much about human life, and not doing so would make you such a hypocritical vile moronic arsehole.
No it wouldn't, it would make me normal; only having an abortion myself would - on this issue at least - make me a hypocrite. But indeed, if I'm ever capable of raising a child, I'll most definitely adopt rather than having my own. However, the reason that there are children currently in need of adoption is not that their mothers should have been able/encouraged to abort them, as you imply, but because of family breakdown, and many adoptive couples specifically want to raise an adopted child from infancy.

My body, my choise, as simple as that.
No, it's another human's body, and life.
It would be just part of your/the mother's body, for 9 months. And indeed you/the mother had a choice - sex (only 1% of abortions follow rape).

My body, my choice. Not your business at all. For sure your are not a Mother, being mum it's not just about 9 months. Life is not about statistics, how dare you judje People you don't Know ? 
When did I say that I'm judging, or use judgemental language?
As I just said, it's another human's body, not simply "your body, your choice" - why have you just repeated mantra and ignored my point?


How can that be known? There are things that cannot be directly externally measured - crucially, wealth and happiness are not directly correlated at all (which is by no means an excuse for the grotesque theft from Africa by my continent) - people who choose to seek Jesus' presence experience some deep inner joy that we spoilt (too wealthy) Europeans are missing out on.
It was people genuinely seeking to do Christ's work who convinced our government to outlaw the slave trade, and many of the organisations that have lobbied for Fair Trade, more UKAid etc, and provided aid, medical support, etc, are working in Jesus' name (though, obviously, my nation as a whole has done far, far, far too little to stop our corporations exploiting Africa, and to help those in need, it makes me furious). Here in the UK, and Europe generally, most people ignore Jesus, so they'll miss out on the eternal life (heaven) that He offers, whilst many people in Africa turn to God and will have ETERNITY in perfect joy that will make this lifetime seem like a second.
(NB, apologies if I seem patronising - and I cannot stress enough how enraged I am by my continent's actions in Africa)

  
What would alien life mean for Catholicism? The Vatican’s chief astronomer explains. vox.com
It's remarkable how often non-Christians presume that Christians reject any science that's not described literally in the Bible.
Silz renardpolaire1.jpg 
I'm so sick of seeing laughter reactions on posts that are purely tragic. What's wrong with you?
The idea that segregation of 60+ years ago is why children tiday cant swim is silly. Public pools are open to everyone. Beaches are open to everyone. Building a pool in your yard is open to everyone. Buying a cheap above ground pool is open to everyone.
Yikes - "Public pools are open to everyone"? How much do they cost? " Building a pool in your yard is open to everyone"? Frick, seriously? You honestly think that everyone is wealthy enough to own their own home, with a garden, and pay for a pool to built and maintained?
(And beaches are only an option for those who live near them - and are also not necessarily suitable for learning to swim)
 
White man can't jump is funny but black man can't swim isn't?
Absolutely. We white people are less likely to jump well (though some are awesome) because we're, on average, athletically inferior. Whereas those who can't swim are unable to do so because they've not learned, because relative poverty has prevented them from having ther opportunity. And if a person can't jump well, it doesn't matter - if a person drowns, it sodding does, more than there are words for.

How, exactly, are you defining "gay conversion therapy"? What exactly is in these books?

Obvs. there are cases in which there's been rape or where there's a serious medical issue - but these account for only several % of all abortions. http://tinyurl.com/y25pu5ca
easy to judge shoes you’ve never walked in.
I didn't say that I'm judging, nor did I use any judgemental language. But I resent Vice, and other media, conning people into thinking that abortion is a noble cause, and that what's killed isn't a human being. By the 2nd trimester, it has brain waves and all of its organs.
lol Abort73? Protect me from killing babies!!
It's just one page that offers a concise summary, you can check the data elsewhere.
I have nothing to prove, you're the one smearing fakery.
Smearing fakery? What do you think that my motive for that would be? And of course you have nothing to prove, but why then bother commenting on what I wrote?
    
Yuh, she's 007, not James Bond, but some people are confused. Watching racist mysoginists freak out about it has been hilarious. 
   
Wow, all this moral grandstanding is depressing. I'm 27 with Aspergers and no social life, so I took up watching last year for the sake of having a topic of conversation with my sisters and better understanding my peers (also, I've had anorexia, and seeing girls on Love Island when they're not posing for photos helps to remind me that I'm not fat, and enables me to feel thoroughly conscious that airbrushed images we see everywhere are unrepresentative).
It's really not as awful as those who haven't seen it presume. And if you do find it shocking, you're - with all due respect - out of touch with our society today. It's tragic that people have the attitudes to sex that they do, but it's tragic because people aren't following God, and we already knew that that's the case. It's our job to love them and seek ways to communicate the Gospel to our society
- we can't do that if we turn up our noses and become ignorant of modern life. Also note, the sex content on Love Island is in fact very, very tame. Almost every teenager in the UK will have seen more explicit things in 15 rated films. Following difficulties faced by previous contestants who, apparently (I wasn't watching then) had sex on screen in earlier series of Love Island, the producers decided to ban sex on the show. There are, sometimes, movements of duvet covers, and references to sex, but no actual sex on screen. There's a lot of companionship as friendships develop, and amusing conversation.


OK, but how much is it paying its factory workers?
Is it keeping its workers safe, following incidents such as that at Rana Plaza?
Does it have any consideration for its workers' wellbeing, or do they have no air conditioning and no breaks?
I'm sick of corporations virtue signalling through, albeit very rightly, attempts to be more green, whilst human beings are living in hell.
  
Sex Education: The LGBT Debate in Schools
There's a crucial distinction - whilst some protesters may well be driven by hatred, many are in fact motivated by the sincere belief that God/Allah, who knows what's best for humanity, has prohibited gay sex. That's also distinct from simply having the orientation. Abuse/bullying needs to be eliminated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that children need to be taught about homosexuality - rather, they need to be taught to be loving and respectful towards everyone that they go on to encounter in life.
absolutely but whilst some religions think it’s ok to throw gay people off buildings inclusivity has no chance.
Indeed, different faiths (in this case, Christianity and Islam) are very different from each other. And each believer has their own views. Crucially, the fact that some people are protesting these lessons doesn't by any means indicate that they endorse the attacking of gay people.
The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - that's distinct from simply having gay orientation, and either way, the Bible makes it clear that no one should be bullied in any way. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
Please note – many people who’ve called themselves Christians aren’t actually following Christ; Jesus was consistently peaceful and compassionate.
I wish our society didn't obsess so much about peoples' sex lives - each human being is a priceless individual with traits and skills that add to the community, who they have sex with doesn't impact the community, yet our culture insists on defining people by it.

it’s funny that in your last comment here you said that you wished people would stop reducing everything to sex ... but in your first comment you brought gay sex up when, in fact, that is completely irrelevant here!? ๐Ÿค” The No Outsiders scheme (which is what this is about) doesn’t teach kids about gay sex AT ALL. It’s about tolerance and acceptance ... of LGBT people and much else besides! So you brought sex into it ......... 
I didn't say that No Outsiders is about sex (though kids will wonder, when they learn basic sex ed, which for me was around the age of 6). I was thinking outloud (or in type) about, as I said, society. Because our society will be shaping the protesters concerns. Do you not think that they're hostility, in part, is contributed to by the exuberance of sexuality that they observe in our nation today? I'm not saying that they're right to protest, I think that both sides are misunderstanding each other.
I still think you’re off the mark with this. The issue being discussed is the No Outsiders scheme, which promotes tolerance broadly conceived (and so a portion of it addresses LGBT issues). That can only be a good thing. Of course kids might be curious and ask questions about relationships ... that is a normal part of growing up, no? Kids see heterosexuality literally everywhere from the moment they arrive on this planet and eventually ask questions too ...?
I'm aware that the issue here is No Outsiders, and I'm not saying that I'd join the protesters, but I know that they're concerned because of the wider narrative as they observe it. Emphasis on concern, not necessarily hatred of LGBT people. Look at this way, why do kids need to see storybooks with LGBT characters? Again, I'm not necessarily personally saying that they shouldn't, but I'm asking why it's necessary. What's necessary - vital - is that we eliminate bullying of LGBT people. But bullying is eliminated through teaching kids to be compassionate, respectful and friendly - if we can impart these values, telling them about LGBT isn't necessarily essential. Right now, teenagers and adults have all grown up without this on the curriculum, and the majority are still supportive of LGBT rights and Pride. What our society needs is for each of us to have more love for our fellow humans, breaking down dividing lines
- I'd focus on using limited lesson time to do that.

 
Can nationalism save conservatism?
No. Nationalism implies considering one's nation somehow superior than others. That's antithetical to Christ's message of humility. You can't convince millennials and genZ into conservatism with nationalism. Saving the parts of conservatism that should be saved requires highlighting the merits of those individual cases - such as the anti-abortion stance. Mostly, nationalism is in decline, and where it is growing amongst younger generations, it often links with things that you wouldn't want to be associated with.
We all need to focus on Christ more, it's His principles that we should strive towards, not the various isms.
perhaps in England nationalism is on the decline. If you have no pride in your country it gets overrun by those who do not respect it. Immigrants who hate your country and do not want to be citizens create their own minicountries and destroy the nation.
Comments like that are why my generation hate conservatism and nationalism.
America was overrun by immigrants a few centuries ago - they sailed from Europe and massacred the native people. Obviously, I'm not blaming you for what your ancestors did, but I find it bizarre that you can have such disregard for people fleeing unbearable violence and poverty (much of which is ultimately linked to frees enacted by US governments and corporations). How, by the way, have you concluded that immigrants hate the US? And why so you care if they keep aspects of their original culture?
What do you think Jesus would say?
my ancestors didn’t. I am the daughter of post WW2 European immigrants. Who wanted to be Canadian and learned the language and were proud to become Canadian citizens. Nationalism ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿป❤️who do you think you are to speak for a whole generation? LOL. Maybe you should step out and find out a few things.
So you're the daughter of immigrants, but you think that immigrants take over and hate the country?
I didn't say that I speak for a whole generation, I'm referring to broad trends, which can be observed via statistics
ignorant comments like yours is why so many young people are turning from left wing ideology, back to conservatism. Read your bible and you will see God is the creator of nations and is no fan of human led one world governments. 
I'm not at all pro EU, why are you bringing it up? When did I advocate "human led, one world government"? What statistical evidence have you seen that young people are turning to Conservatism?
we ought to learn from the Old Testament when God warned the tribes of Israel and their leaders to not allow foreigners to practice their religions in Israel and Judah nor permit them to marry into the society as they would turn the hearts of men to worship foreign gods and that’s exactly what happened. If they came as foreigners they were to obey Jewish law. We are open to all people but not to every ideology they bring. Ideologies, not ethnicities, shape a society. Conservatism is majorly on the rise which is why conservative parties across Europe, Latin America and Asia are winning elections while the left is shrinking.
Juvenile black-tailed prairie dogs.jpg
At the time of the Old Testament, God said that His people must avoid allowing paganism in their lands because they would worship pagan dieties themselves if they did. Today our society is entirely different, we each have many different choices to make as to what we believe, and make our own choices about faith. Consumerism, sport, sex ans self love are the national religions killing Christianity, it isn't immigration that's a threat. Plenty of people are turning to paganism - but that's because of human tendencies and trends they encounter in the media, they're not copying the faiths of immigrants that they meet. Most people are atheist or follow new age spirituality, individuals aren't turning from being Christians to copy the faiths of immigrants. Here in the UK, we've had decades of immigration of people from Muslim and Hindu backgrounds, but British people aren't converting from Christianity to Islam or Hinduism, most are turning from God to atheism (numbers of those faiths, esp Islam, are on the rise - but that's because they have many more children than average Anglo Brits, there aren't committed Christians converting to Islam). We've also had immigration from countries with stronger Christianity than Britain itself has had for generations, and as a result, whilst the Church of England (which, for generations, has comprised in no small part of people who've joined simply because it was socially typical) is dying, Pentecostalism is on the rise. Seriously, immigration is having a positive impact on the numbers of people truly in love with God here. In the US, much immigration is from countries where belief in God is stronger than it is in the US itself. Have you seen evidence of true, committed believers in God turning to follow religions introduced to them by immigrants? 

Megan's been an advocate for World Vision USA. If only we could spend a bit more time discussing the people who are so poor that they live in rags, rather than constantly obsessing over what Megan's wearing.....
If, for example, we bought less wear-once fashion (or bought from Oxfam Great Britain, which sells a lot of awesome clothes) and cinema tickets ourselves, we could use the money saved to transform lives. That's far more exciting than what Megan's wearing.
shut up
I wasn't talking, my mouth's not open, I can't shut it. Why should I stop typing?
Megan will do far more then you ever can as has Prince Charles! A beautiful pic of a successful Actress, business woman.
When did I say that I'm comparing myself to Megan? I'm sure she'll be able to achieve more, she's one of the luckiest, most privileged people in the world. My point is that we, and our media, should spend slightly less time deifying Megan, and consider the fact that equally deserving human beings are trapped in squalour. Because of the corruption that's made our nation rich, some innocent people are born into slums, without medical care, proper nutrition or clean water, and grow up with no opportunities to escape their tortuous poverty. They are no less important, valuable, deserving human beings than we - or Megan - are. That we have the potential to help them is far more exciting than what Megan's wearing (as much as I find fashion interesting).
shup to F....k up you time waster. Get a life..
This is so funny - why tell me to shut up and f off? Why would I care that you've written that? Do you really think that you've hurt my feelings or made me less likely to comment like this in future?
And do you really think it's "time wasting" to care about the people in greatest need? Do you think that, in your mocking, you're somehow superior? Really?

   
Jayda^ needs to stop waving a cross around. Her attitude is seriously un Christlike.
a lot of people would describe themselves as Christian or <insert name of religion here> yet act in ways that goes directly against what they profess to believe.
That was my original point. Christianity is a label that plenty of people love to wear because they think of it as part of their heritage - but very, very few Brits today are actually committed to following Christ, which is, obviously, what Christian actually means.
Hypothetically, I could describe myself as musical because I like the label, and my family plays instruments - but since I don't play any instruments and haven't the foggiest how to read music, I'm in reality not musical, whatever I call myself. North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, but that doesn't mean that it actually is democratic, and we can't judge the concept of democracy by North Korea. Nazi is short for the German for National Socialist, but that doesn't mean that Nazism is like socialism. So people calling themselves Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they are. The reason that matters, is that plenty of people resent and reject Christianity, and thus never explore Christ, because they hate some of the behaviour of people who call themselves Christians - but in fact, the latter aren't actually following, thus aren't representive of Christ.

  
The i Paper - It's Amazon Prime Day!
So? We knew without needing to be told - ultimately it's a grossly oversized corporation that's mistreating workers, destroying smaller businesses and developing the power to spy on people. And, seriously, most of its prices aren't the best.
I'm not saying that no one should use it at all - but that there's no reason to get excited about Prime Day.
 
    .
We need to stop buying jeans, and wear out those that are already in our cupboards and charity shops.

All this fuss about our ambassador writing, in a private email, what much of the public and media here has been saying for years, seems ironic given that we're about to have a PM who verbally called "the French" (Macron) turds.

Brit here - yuh, the situation here sucks, I break down in tears if I think about it deeply enough; but this survey is pretty meaningless. There've been very, very, very few Christians for several generations - what's happened is that fewer people now are referring to themselves as Christians in surveys simply because it feels like the right thing to do.
Previous surveys recorded a majority of people ticking the Christian box because it was part of their heritage - now, fewer people do that, since it's become socially acceptable not to tick that box; but the proportion of people following Jesus hasn't necessarily changed.

Gay sex? That's precisely the issue - the media and certain organisations endlessly sexualising LGBT people, when their sex lives are in fact nothing to with the rest of us. They're each unique human beings with infinite traits and interests that have nothing to do with sex, yet the thing that's done in private is what our culture so often wants to define them by.
I suspect that part of the reason for this rise is the explicit nature of parts of Pride parades, and of many pop culture portrayals - ultimately because sex sells, so profit is being made by corporations that are ultimately fuelling societal division.

Global Citizen for goodness sake. People in our world are starving, and you're moaning about how many £millions footballers are paid?
Obviously, it's entirely wrong that women are paid less - but it's still gross that they're as wealthy as they are when equally valuable human beings are dying of poverty. The gross poverty that innocent human beings are trapped in is ultimately the result of greed that's made nations like ours wealthy, so rich that we pay £millions to sportspeople.
The media spends a lot of time debating the pay gap between male and female multimillionaires, ignoring the scores of people for whom an actual football is an unaffordable luxury - GLOBAL CITIZEN is supposed to be all about the people in serious need, whether or not female footballers can afford quite as enormous mansions as their male counterparts doesn't actually matter.

   
Is Labour Anti-Semitic?
I'm entirely confused about this issue - surely potential evil attitudes amongst branches in boroughs and towns around the country can't be comprehensively investigated within the space of one programme? Surely we need to vote based on the manifestoes and records of our MPs?
Really? I've never heard it discussed at my Church (here in the UK), and in sermons that I listen to from your side of the pond, if it's mentioned it's not discussed in a legalistic or negative way whatsoever.
Personally, I've been repulsed by the notion for as long as I've known about it, despite the smiley faced cartoons in the children's' sex-ed book I was first shown (at around 7, I think), but that revulsion has been hugely nurtured by the explicit sexuality in our culture's media.

10 ways to have more money What has been your best secondhand purchase?
Nb, there's a sale on Oxfam's online shop ATM. The best buys are those that can genuinely make a massive difference to people in extreme need.except the fact only 1% of the sale goes to people in need. Why do you think the founder is a millionaire
LOL, why do you think that only 1% goes to people in need? Seriously, where on Earth did you get that from?
I agree that charity bosses are paid too much - but it's still only a tiny% of the takings. The charities commission checks up on what % of any charity's income goes to those in need, for Oxfam it's just over 80%, which is typical. Personally I make my monetary donations to charities where a higher % goes to their work, but only Oxfam has a large network of shops (inc online) and works with those people in the very greatest need, so I shop with them.
The 20% that remains is divided between salaries, admin and advertising. Unfortunately, large salaries are necessary to lure in - from the business sector - bosses with the expertise to make the organisation grow its income.

Even if Ryanair don't charge much, the cost to the planet is still huge. We need to stop being misled into thinking that regular flights are necessary for enjoying life.
Note The Independent's hypocrisy https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/vapour-trails-contrails-planes-ice-clouds-co2-climate-change-emissions-a8979386.html?

Nah. Abolishing slavery wasn't about abolitionists own future wellbeing. (not that I'm not supportive of climate activism, obvs.)
  
Canadian abortion rights group condemns cinema chain over 'anti-choice' film
Country’s largest cinema chain criticized for screening Unplanned, which is said to promote falsehoods about reproductive health
What, exactly, are those falsehoods? Abortion organisations perpetually hide the reality of abortion, because whitewashing it enables them to profit.
  
HBO Max: Yet Another Streaming Service Has Been Announced, and It’s Taking ‘Friends’
Just what we all need: Yet another streaming service that wants to take our money every month.
I'm in the UK, and don't know enough about how things work regarding free channels where you are - but is it not possible to do without subscription services? Or just have one if absolutely neccessary - since by not having multiple subscriptions, one can save a monthly amount that could do far more exciting things (eg, $6 each month can feed a starving child via Feed The Hungry USA, $38 monthly can sponsor a child with Compassion International). There are only limited hours in the day to watch TV anyway,...
  
People need to stop calling themselves evangelicals if they aren't. The Bible makes it clear, repeatedly, that we should have compassion and concern for others, specifically including those from other nations. Have people not read the parable of the Good Samaritan?
the Good Samaritan act it out of his own character. He did not use other people's tax dollars and the force of government legislation to take care of the man. The difference is between the responsibilities of individual Christians, and the responsibilities of the country as a whole, and/or its secular state government. Individual Christians were told to help the refugee. Not to use government forced to do so.
The Good Samaritan is our example. If we're striving to follow Jesus, we will want, as the Gods Samaritan illustrated, for those in need to be helped. In his setting, there wasn't the governmental infrastructure by which the poor are helped. Our nations have developed some of these systems (for helping those in need) BECAUSE of our Christian heritage. Human beings can be greedy, and we already have a disproportionate share of humanity's resources because of the greed of our ancestors and our nations corporations, thus it's necessary for governments to use some tax to help those people suffering severely because of the injustices that have benefitted us. If we object, is the love of God really in us? Are we not too attached to our money - which Jesus warned against - if we resent the tiny amounts of tax* spent on helping the poor from elsewhere?
*Last I read, the US spends 0.5% of its GDP on helping people from other countries.

Says the man who's so sensitive and emotionally fragile, he couldn't handle the news that Greggs offers vegan sausage rolls, and has been having a strop for years that Megan Markle doesn't want to be besties with him?
  
Nevermind Oreos, it includes Cadbury(and far, far more)- I find myself annoyed by headlines that mention a tiny part of a corporation and don't give the corporation name, as though we've not heard of Mondalez and we can simply boycott one product. I object (though obviously, it genuinely doesn't actually matter at all and I'm joking) to people disregarding the basic, indisputable fact that chocolate is superior to biscuits - but headlines like this are also patronising and misleading. The reality is that almost all brands are made by one of a handful of multinationals, and they're each hugely lacking in principles. We need to do our best to buy wisely, but it's impossible to boycott products made by Palm Oil harvesting corporations altogether.
And whilst I'm obviously heartbroken about orangutans, I find it disturbing that our society/press are evidently far, far more concerned about them than about the human beings in agonising poverty or slavery because of corporate greed. Can the farmers who provide the cocoa and sugar for Oreos, for example, afford to feed their families? They're likely too poor to have actually eaten Oreos or other confectionery. They could be children forced violently from their homes. But whilst there's rightly a lot of activism about orangutans, we almost never hear about those human beings.
Sorry for ranting.

  
It can't be proven that we don't, since even if one doesn't believe in God, their goodness may ultimately result from having been made by God. The poetic allegory of early Genesis says that God made humans "in His image" so any human has the ability to do good - but also has freewill, which we all sometimes use wrongly.
In practice, genuine love of God and deep gratitude for Christ's offer of salvation (through willingly taking the punishment we deserve) will cause us to want to follow His commands. If indeed, He exists, then when we decide to accept Him He will help us to gradually become better at defeating temptation and living in a way that helps others.
you can’t prove a negative, and the burden of proof is still on you
Why is the burden of proof on me? Because Sagan said so and it's been repeated Ad Nauseum as dogma since?
Sorry if it sounds as though I'm on the attack.
How do you define "proof" in this context?
Have you looked at the philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of a creator? I used to think that God was imaginary, but as I studied biology, I realised that it seemed more likely that there is a creator than that there's not (eg, see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gsa58Rm8Sk ). Further examination of physics convinced me further (eg , one summary, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning).
There are plenty of writings and lectures by academics (published authors with PhDs) who explain the arguments for God's existence in more detail, such as John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, Allister McGrath and more.
Your conclusions are up to you, but I'd recommend not concluding that God is imaginary on the basis of presumption without investigation.
you are asking me to prove the non existence of something you are not even able to define. illogical
When did I say that I can't define Him? He is the creator.
 
When Theater is a Religious Experience
“These days, we often think of drama as providing a kind of secular communion,”
Yikes. With all due respect, you've been horrendously misinformed about what Communion is.
NB Communion is a symbol and act of remembrance of Jesus being brutally slaughtered because of the wrong things that we do. He made it possible for us to be forgiven, and thus to spend eternity with God(heaven) after this lifetime, proving Himself by rising from the dead. Theatre can be awesome, but it's nothing like Communion.
I've been following this, only a minority of comments have been critical of Ariel being black, and some have been hoaxes. But there are some. It's tragic, in 2 senses of the word, that people are objecting to this. I think that it's primarily about nostalgic attachment to the original image, rather than necessarily about conscious racism for everyone - but people really, really ought to be conscious of the importance of there being more main characters of colour, and that that trumps their attachment to what they're familiar with. Also that, ultimately, it's just melanin; it's disturbing that people treat it as so significant. Any white actress chosen would have had a differently proportioned face (and body) to the original, people need to remind themselves that, other than the cultural history, skin colour means nothing.
just melanin? What about her lips, her hair, her body shape, her organs and skull size?
It's not "just" skin color, it's much more. You should try to understand the basics behind evolution.
Biology is the root, culture is the flower.
You really have no clue.

All of those traits are similarly unimportant - and no white actress would have the same lips, hair and body shape as the cartoon. Do you have evidence that skull size differs between ethnicities, as you imply? That sounds like a racist fallacy.
Like I said, you really have no clue. It's very well known, and for a long time. https://www.researchgate.net/.../24024566_Estimation_and...
The linked article does not state that people of different races have different skull sizes. There are some studies suggesting a difference in the density of skull bone, but the whole concept of comparing skulls between races has been generally discredited as racist pseudoscience. In particular, there are environmental factors to consider (ie, black people are more likely to be born into poverty and thus not receive the ample nutrition that we do) but crucially, skull size is known to be inconsequential, and the skull size of any human is out of proportion from A CARTOON. As are body proportions. How can you possibly argue that it's wrong to change a Disney princesses ethnicity because of ethnic variations in shape, when Disney princesses have always had absurd proportions, and when IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE STORY? (Sorry for shouting).
"what importance is it, OTHER THAN CULTURAL HISTORY" uuuuuhhhhhhhhhh Imagine being so woke you inadvertently admit that this is cultural appropriation
You seem to be presuming I'm fanatical about bemoaning cultural appropriation - I'm not. I'm concerned about human beings. In this case, because statistics show that black people are treated less well than white people, it's good to have a black main character whose visibility can make a tiny dent in this injustice. Our brains have proven mechanisms of preferring people of our own race, and more exposure to people who are different from us can reduce this - which is vital because, in case you weren't aware, people deserve equal treatment regardless of ethnicity.
Hey! There are about 5 million Danes. The story is Danish. The Danish have a specific look. What if the Danes would make a movie about an African myth or folklore and made them all white? The outcry would be heard from the moon! This is beyond ridiculous. This isn't "diversity" (although those who celebrate diversity also object to "diversity" as derogative, it seems they will never be happy), this is a simple case of hijacking another country's heritage.
Do you really think that this is oppressive of Danish people? Just because they live on the same patch of land as Hans Christian Andersen? Was the previous cast, for the cartoon of the Little Mermaid, Danes? Why would anyone feel entitled to a monopoly on the writings of someone else? I don't feel nor have any attachment to the writings of Dickens, Austen or Shakespeare - some of their work has indeed been recreated in entirety unBritish cultural settings and I can't fathom being angry about that.
Obviously, we need to eliminate the abuse of LGBT people - but what exactly is "heartwarming" about leather bondage harnesses, and a man conveying his sexuality by dressing as a pup and kissing an actual dog? And has it not occurred to anyone that things like that might ultimately add to the backlash that results in some completely different LGBT people being hurt?

"Overweight" is a useless term in this context, plenty of male athletes would be overweight by definition due to muscle mass, thus body fat % needs to be measured also.

Cute :) NB though - Jesus offers eternal life (heaven) to anyone who chooses to truly accept Him (and demonstrated the authenticity of His power over death by rising), Christened or not. (Christening is a tradition based on the misunderstanding that whether an infant that died would go to heaven was determined by a ceremony).
this is not a post to push your religious viewsLOL what do you reckon I'm advertising? How am I "pushing? I commented, we all do that.
I don’t believe that. So these people that murder people that just accept that there is a God and never do a kind thing just get eternal life and go to heaven? I know what the Bible says but I prefer to have the ceremony and tradition of the baptism of babies.
If a person genuinely accepts Jesus, they'll naturally desire to try to emulate Him, thus won't murder, and will do good.
HAIL SCIENCE
What about it? When did I say that I reject science? I'm trying to finish my Biomedical Sciences degree ATM. If you think that Theism rejects science, you've misunderstood. https://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
THERE IS NO GOD
LOL, I've never come across anyone saying that before...
Out of interest, how do you, personally, know?
Have you looked at the philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of a creator? I used to think that God was imaginary, but as I studied biology, I realised that it seemed more likely that there is a creator than that there's not (eg, see, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gsa58Rm8Sk ). Further examination of physics conviced me further (eg , one summary, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning).
There are plenty of writings and lectures by academics (published authors with PhDs) who explain the arguments for God's existence in more detail, such as John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig, Allister McGrath and more.
Your conclusions are up to you, but I'd recommend not concluding that God is imaginary on the basis of presumption without investigation.

how do you know there is one? Science points to no, but please go one spreading your unwanted dogma
As I said, If you think that science and God are opposed, you've misunderstood. Why not try the TIME magazine article I linked to?
Why exactly do you think "science points to no"? May I ask - since I'm fascinated by science and by peoples' views - what science you've undertaken yourself? What are your objections to the arguments made in the hyperlinks in my last comment?
Science measures matter and energy that God created, it's not able to analyse God Himself directly. But the improbable specificity, and the interdependence, of the universe and biological world, indicate a creator, and that's who/what God is.

hey do you remember when someone told you Santa didn’t exist? Hate to bear the news but Jesus ain’t son of god either. Still, there’s loads of other great books to read. Stay sane out there ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ
LOL, how much have you studied this topic?
(No one had to tell me about Santa BTW, I worked that out around 4. Belief in God, and in Jesus, are - for me and some academics - based on scientific, historic and philosophical arguments. Have you weighed these up yourself? What do you think of the hyperllinked articles?)

oh Grace. Please do tell me of the scientific proof for Jesus’ divinity. And gods existence. Enlighten me hallelujah
"enlighten me" - have you actually looked at what I've already hyperlinked? I could explain more myself, an add more articles by PhDs, but there's no point given that you evidently aren't going to read it.
I have, what else have you got?
Really? What did you think of them?
What did you mean when you asked for "scientific proof for Jesus’ divinity"? I didn't specify that there's each of scientific, historic and philosophical support for each aspect of Christianity, different arguments support different aspects. Science supports the existence of a creator - history and philosophy support the crucial points about Jesus.
Divinity itself could obviously not be proven by science, since science measures matter and energy that the divine created, it's not able to analyse the divine itself directly.
The improbable specificity, and the interdependence, of the universe and biological world, indicate a creator, and that's who/what God is. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
Analysis of the accounts of Jesus' resurrection - only after I'd read books on the topic, led me to conclude, as daft as it sounds, that Jesus did in fact rise. This is one snippet http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...

I shall attempt to answer your questions in order,
1, yes
2, laughable
3, I didn’t ask for that, just for what else you’ve got
I’d be interested to hear more of the historical and scientific arguements
DM me by all means

As I said, I only felt that it was likely that Jesus rose from the dead after I'd read a lot on the topic - so there's no way that a sufficiently thorough explanation can be cobbled together in a Facebook thread.
Is it Jesus' resurrection that you dispute, or are you entirely atheist? Did you look at the links RE manuscripts and the universe?
When you ask for "what else I've got", I could go on and on, if I had time, but I need to know more about what you're thinking than "laughable".

no problem. That reading you did, was it all from apologists? Or have you tried to take an unbiased, sceptical look at the subject? You might find this interesting... https://youtu.be/rCFuhlnsF9c 
Carrier is an apologist for mythicism. Each person we read/listen to is a believer in their own conclusions and would like for others to agree with their views, so Christian apologists can't immediately be dismissed, they're explaining the reasons that they've concluded the evidence points towards God and Christ's resurrection.
I'm familiar with Carrier and Craig, and have evaluated arguments from both of them already. Note, for example, Wikipedia, which - though obviously never perfect nor thorough enough - is generally neutral/secular, presents a Reception portion of Carrier's page where almost all of the academic reviews are ultimately negative "Simon Gathercole at Cambridge ...concludes that Carrier's arguments, and more broadly, the mythicist positions on different aspects of Paul's letters are contradicted by the historical data"
"reviewing Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.... finds Carrier's arguments "problematic and unpersuasive", his use of Bayesian probabilities "unnecessarily complicated and uninviting" and criticizes Carrier's "lack of evidence, strained readings and troublesome assumptions." "etc, etc.


My plan to protect a woman's right to control her own body:
Only appoint judges who will defend Roe v. Wade Pass Medicare for All and repeal the Hyde Amendment Codify abortion rights into federal law
The issue is with destroying others' bodies by tearing them limb from limb in abortion. A woman can control her own body unless she's raped, but that accounts for only 1% of abortions.
What I find monumentally frustrating is that, obviously, the world needs for America to have a president who cares about the poor, refugees, and climate change, but the Democrats are making plenty of people feel unable to vote for them by fervently boasting about abortion continuously. Given that 50% of people believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that some floating voters voted for Trump because of Clinton's support for abortion, it seems likely that the Dems could win if they'd stop celebrating abortion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/abortion-is-most-divisive-issue-in-gallup-values-beliefs-pollThe real issue is that no one can be forced to allow another to use their body against their will, even if they will die without it. Nice try, though.
"no one can be forced to allow another to use their body" but a human can be forced through a vacuum aspirator or between surgical blades and into an incinerator? Even when the former has already had a choice (several in fact, such as Plan B) and the latter hasn't? Why? 
The word "evangelical" has been massively misused for decades. Like the word Christian, many people use it because of the community that they're brought up in, not necessarily adhering to the actual meaning of the word.
Christian, by definition, means "little Christ" - that is, to accept Jesus' sacrifice and in turn genuinely desire to emulate Him.
Evangelical comes from "Evangel", meaning good news - that good news being that Christ offers eternal life (heaven) to anyone who chooses to truly accept Him (and demonstrated the authenticity of His power over death by rising), Ie. Evangelical means wanting desperately to share the message that we believe matters more than anything else (given the eternality of what's offered, and that we experience joy in this lifetime in knowing Christ that we want others to experience).
So, so often, people call themselves Christians and/or Evangelicals, whilst their actions demonstrate that they're in fact not actually interested in following Jesus.
 
yeah. Neither works just fine for me. Both are hypocrites.
We're all individuals. I'm well aware that plenty are hypocrites, that's what I just wrote, you needn't tell me. And I'm obviously massively flawed, though I am trying. But what you think of Christians doesn't matter. What do you think of Christ?
Those who fought for abortion legalisation were motivated by a desire to reduce the birth rate amongst people who they deemed inferior, including African Americans. It's disgusting.
NB, BoJo spoke positively about colonialism in Africa. The ignorance, or lack of humanity, that he and Widecombe have regarding the indescribable tragedy of what was done to African people is mindblowing.
yawn
With all due respect, are you uninformed or uncaring? Slavery, to which Anne Widecombe compared being in the EU, has involved countless innocent human beings being ripped from their homes and families; brutally abused; raped; forced into to literally tortuous labour; and murdered. How can you not be horrified by that? Crucially slavery and colonialism of the past still cause immeasurable suffering today, because of the poverty and disorder left behind - and modern day slavery and colonialism are also impacting pain beyond anything we experience.
  
Nah. "Christian" by definition, means to love Jesus and thus desire to emulate Him. We're still very, very far from perfect, but because we genuinely want to follow Christ, we don't do things like this^.
^They are one of the many, many people who call themselves Christian because it's a familiar label that they like, and which they hope might make them appear more noble, but calling yourself something doesn't mean that you are that thing, and the actions of a person ignoring Christ's teachings shouldn't determine what you think of Christ, regardless of them calling themselves Christian.
hose priests are lying hypocrites and God despises their behaviour. They've taken up a job, that doesn't mean that they're actually following God at all, evidently they aren't. If you read the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus spends much of His time brutally reprimanding priests.
Priests do it and they are the teachers of Christ.
Those priests are lying hypocrites and God despises their behaviour. They've taken up a job, that doesn't mean that they're actually following God at all, evidently they aren't. If you read the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus spends much of His time brutally reprimanding priests.

Obviously, we should be seriously concerned about relative poverty, but deaths in the streets and child poverty are separate issues. I'm really, really not diminishing these tragedies, but they need to be discussed in accurate detail, a phrase like "children dying on our streets" simply for emotional effect whilst overlooking the specifics is probably not helpful.
There are children in relative poverty (nb, different from absolute poverty, as defined by the UN, which doesn't get enough of our attention) and data and particular contributing factors to this.
There are people on the streets, and some lose their lives, an issue for which there are other statistics and contributing factors.
Children on the streets are put into care as soon as they're found, which is of course a desperately sad situation, but it's distinct from the situation for adults on the streets who might stay there and not survive.
Both of these are heartbreaking beyond words, and need to be comprehensively addressed, but they're not the same thing.

  
Paying to get pregnant - The United States is having record low fertility rates  AJ+
But you're also super pro-abortion access, aren't you AJ? ๐Ÿคจ
False equivalence
It really is equivalence - whether the mother wants an abortion, or is over the moon to finally be pregnant after struggling, what's in her womb is a tiny, innocent, living human.
The point is that, rather than supporting the killing of unwanted babies, our society could support and facilitate adoption, since there are women utterly desperate for a newborn.
so you want breeders to go through all the dangers that pregnancy brings with it as well as the mental trauma and then give birth so women who can’t have children can have a newborn? Do you live in Gilead? Adoption is an alternatively motherhood not pregnancy and there are plenty children in the world looking for a loving home already.
"breeders"? Yikes, do you not see how grossly dehumanising of women that is?
Are you unaware that abortion entails dangers and mental trauma? For example, https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE... ;
https://lifecharity.org.uk/.../ambulances-called-778.../
In Gilead, women are raped, and they're forced to give up babies that they want (they're also forced to live in servitude); how exactly is that like women being pregnant because they've chosen to have sex, and give up babies because they don't want to raise them?
I'm aware that there are children in need of adoption and that's tragic - but many adoptive couples specifically want a newborn. Were it up to me, the government would do far more (than it is now) to encourage adoption of older children also.
Racists want to detail this conversation because they don't want to be complicit with their beliefs causing this and high postpartum mortality among black women
I'm not sure what that last comment means, the sentence structure doesn't quite make sense. But if you're implying that I'm racist, and by fascinated to know how you've reached that erroneous conclusion. Nb the abortion movement was initially largely fuelled by racism - those arguing to make it legal had argued that the black birth rate should be reduced.
I agree that there should be free birth control and sex ed - but we also need to stop conning teenagers into the lie that sex is necessary as soon as one's 16.
I'd expect nothing less from a jesus freak. Calling a small bunch of useless biological cells "a tiny human" .
LOL Dinesh, define "Jesus freak". I'm happy to be called that, but what do you think it means such that you (evidently) resent it? Why do you bring it up, when I never mentioned it?
And a foetus is, by definition, a tiny human, who told you otherwise? I won't argue about embryos, but within 2 months, the unborn is a foetus (nb, foetus is simply Latin for "offspring") with brain waves, not just a few "useless cells". Even at the embryo stage, those cells are not "useless" they contain the genome that will direct them to grow into a fully developed adult. Surely you knew that? I haven't yet finished my biomedical sciences degree yet but I'm working on it, which scientific authority told you that a foetus isn't human?


Here in the UK, we young people absolutely can't afford our own homes either, and never will. Solutions are needed globally.
srsly, you lot in the UK can afford a home, it's whether you want to save up for it. In HK, where a 500sqft apartment goes for HKD 5 million in a remote far out satellite town, that's called a dream.
"you lot in the UK can afford a home, it's whether you want to save up for it."? According to who? The average salary here is £28,000 - but most young people are earning far, far less then that. Many young people then have to spend half their income on rent, since they can't yet afford a home, as well as having to pay for food etc, leaving tiny amounts to save up - so how do you reach the conclusion that we can afford homes when they cost £200,000 to £million?
I'm incredibly privileged in that my parents haven't kicked me out, I'm well aware that I live in luxury by comparison to much of humanity, and I'll continue doing housework for them and be a carer for them when they're older. But the reality, following on from the original post, is that homes here too truly are unaffordable for our generation. Yet I'm incomparably more concerned about those living in refugee camps and slums elsewehere in the world.
  
Woolfe jokes about and celebrates the tearing up of tiny humans, I'm not imagining that the people in charge of choosing talk shows for Netflix has the best ideas.
   
A Federal Judge Has Blocked Ohio’s 6-Week Abortion Ban
The far-right attempts to take away a woman's right to control her own body are dangerous, they are unconstitutional, they are extreme — and they will not stand.
Far right? Far right is to abuse the poor and minorities, not simply to oppose the termination of a biological process. If a person has chosen to have sex, it's not hatred or oppression for a resulting pregnancy to continue (obviously, abortion is allowed when the mother's life is genuinely at risk, no legislation is opposing that - but such instances only account for several% of abortions ATM).
The far right are motivated by greed and xenophobia, pro-lifers are driven by the consciousness that the unborn is a living human.

Heathrow has placed posters for its LGBT Campaign event next to the Royal Brunei check-in.
Obviously, Brunei's previously proposed law against gay sex was utterly evil - but I'm concerned that posters about events will only make Brunei politicians more certain that the LGBT movement ought to be restrained. Does Heathrow really think that what they're doing will help gay people?
Can't we all stop obsessing over sexuality?

I am really, really not unsympathetic to the tragedy of her miscarriages - but it's absurd that she's also campaigned fervently for women to be enabled to have their unborn, at even later stages of development, torn to pieces. She discussed "knowing that her baby was dead inside her", at an early gestational stage - thus by her own words, an unborn human is a baby, and yet she's been fighting to make it more possible for them to be killed.
Seriously, I'm not meaning to sound uncaring about her loss, but I find this cognitive dissonance baffling.
  
Tory leadership rivals rule out intervening to overturn Nothern Ireland abortion ban
NB, abortion is in fact legal in NI "to save the life of the mother" or "if continuing the pregnancy would result in the pregnant woman becoming a physical or mental wreck". I'm ongoingly baffled that some people passionately argue that it would be morally right to make it legal for any reason at all at stages when there's brain functionality.
Who is making that claim? And what stage of pregnancy do you think that is?
I can see from your comment on this post that you're "making this claim" - how have you ended up equating NOT killing tiny humans with the killing of Jewish human beings? Can you really not see that abortion is more comparable to Nazism than restricting abortion is?
Brain function begins within 2 months - https://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i&s1=on&s2=on...

And Tories aren't Nazis just because of this. They're Nazis because they openly and proudly hold Nazi beliefs. Their hatred of everyone who isn't a straight white man and their desire to strip everyone else of basic rights and eventually life is what makes them Nazis.
What evidence do you have that all Tories, or at least BoJo and Hunt, have those views? Obviously, I hate a lot of (most, I suspect) of Tory policy, and wouldn't vote for them; and obviously, some individual Tories are evil, but we can't make things better by over generalisimg groups of people. We need to assess each person's arguments and actions. In this case, BoJo has provided adequate evidence of bigotry, and I dearly wish he wasn't on course to become PM. But whilst I absolutely don't agree with much that Hunt's done, I really don't see how you can equate him with mass murderers.
Opposing abortion is not motivated by hatred of others, it's motivated by the conciousness that the unborn is a living human (and also that having an abortion leaves many women emotionally scarred).
Virginity is perfectly reasonable, and is a way to avoid STIs and emotional pain - but sex sells, so it's been shoved in our faces through pop culture since the 60s, and we grow up being lied to that it's essential for everyone past 16.
   
The Border Crisis: Biblical Responses to the Needs of Children
The Bible makes it clear that God wants us to help refugees....[quotations]
Where are the versus about the stranger falling under the laws of the land? Inconvenient truth??
God doesn't give a ruler permission to create any laws that they like and ignore His commands - Jesus taught that to love others is the most important command after loving God, the government is not endorsed by God in breaking this command by failing to have compassion. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Loving your neighbor as yourself does not means an impersonal love even as imperfections it doesn’t mean to enable people because they have made poor political choices and life choices so we should give them 1/2 of what you have. 
What do you mean by "poor political choices"? Seriously, how have people in South America "chosen" to be born into neighbourhoods where gangs terrorise them? Nb, much of the conflict is ultimately the result of the actions of previous US governments.
It's not an "invasion". Invasion means the taking of personal propoerty and use of force - South American migrants are simply trying to move from one area of God's Earth to another, so that they can undertake work and avoid deadly gangs.
Also, rates of crime amongst migrants are in fact lower than the US population - ie they're less likely to be criminals than American citezens are.
Good grief, you honestly think that migration is the work of Satan? Can you explain that theologically?
Stories about migrants in Paris have been grossly distorted - you've been misled. Though in a few instances, problems have arisen because of Islam - even still, nearly all Muslims are genuinely good people and no threat, as most ignore (or are unaware of).Muhammed's violence. Most Muslims make a positive contribution to society - but in the tiny number of cases where some migrants in Europe have caused trouble, it's parts of Islam (parts not followed at all by most Muslims) that's to blame, so it makes no sense to block South American migrants on the basis of any problems in Europe.
How can you overlook Jesus' teachings about the good Samaritan, and the sheep and goats?
Awesome. Most clothes are produced by people paid so little that they have to live off rice, in slums, despite extreme hours in torturous conditions. We can transform their lives by giving to the organisations that provide education and training in their communities, and that's incomparably more exciting than buying new clothes for the sake of fashion (rather than need).
I urge others to check out Oxfam Great Britain, who sell clothes online (their site and on ebay) as well as instore - some are awful, but there are enough that are brilliant if you explore.

How the queer community can embrace the asexual spectrum
Obviously I mean no offence to the queer community, but why do you presume that asexuals want to be "embraced" by it? As an asexual, I firmly believe that human beings shouldn't need separated communities or to identify ourselves by what we do in private (sex) - as human beings we have endless traits and interests aside from sex, and I hate how our culture has become so obsessed with it.
What "understanding" should we need? If we don't want to have sex, it's no one else's business. Why would I care if people think me never having sex is odd?
I think I understand it's all a bit prosumptuous that you want to be embraced not unlike Christians wanting to save people all the time ๐Ÿค”. The obsession with sex has certainly done major damage to the gay community and as for body shaming ๐Ÿ˜Œ
 I'm sorry if you've experienced annoying Christians. Though NB, some who call themselves Christians are wrong to do so, since they're not in fact in love with, and thus emulating, Christ. But some of us genuine Christians are also naff at representing Jesus. Clearly there's been some misunderstanding between Christians and you. Essentially, we have certainty (some just because of their background - but some because of the evidence) that God exists and has offered each person eternal life with Him (free of all frustration and pain) through Jesus. We know that many people are rejecting that offer, as well as the joy that we experience in this lifetime with Him. Because of the magnitude of this good, and because Jesus urged us to spread Hid message, we feel compelled to tell others about Him. It doesn't score points for being on trend, nor profit, in the way that Mashable etc hope to by splashing sex everywhere. And peace with God will last forever, unlike sex lives, hence our desperation to nudge people towards it. But I'm well aware that plenty of Christians go about evangelism in daft ways.

What if we stopped replacing our tech devices simply because new editions come out (ie, only buy a new phone when our existing one dies etc) and gave the money we save to charities providing aid/education/training etc for those in Africa's poorest communities?....
Eg. Sponsoring a child costs £25/month ($38 - or £300/year), and provides supplementary food, medical checks, lessons and mentoring for an impoverished child, enabling them to grow up healthy and able to go on to university and/or good work, rather than having to undertake tortuous work like this^. Yet it's entirely normal for us to spend more than that on updating our gadgets, perpetuating this^ brutal industry.
would you like to use a computer with a "384" processor running at 33 MHz, 640 K of RAM, running DOS 4.0, and with a hard disk drive of 10 or 20 MB ??? and interconnected to the world with a rotary phone modem ?
When did I say that we need freakishly old devices? I'm advocating, for example, buying one's mobile phone and laptop through ebay, and/or keeping it for years, until it becomes prohibitive to productivity - instead of getting a new device on he basis of the latest iPhone/Samsung Galaxy etc being released.

This is tragic, and so, so wrong. I can't stress enough - abuse of trans people is abhorrent, and MUST be stopped. Yet our society also needs to stop endorsing discomfort with one's own body. We need to help people accept who they are, especially since stereotypes are rightly being dismantled.
If a person is XX, a girl is what they are, and that's it. If they want to have short hair, dress in boys' clothes and undertake historically "male" hobbies, that's a part of the unique, priceless individual that they are - it doesn't mean, as our society impresses on them, that they were "born in the wrong body" and in need of surgery and lifelong hormone injections in order to be their "real selves".
Almost all children who question their gender are fine with their birth sex when they're older, if they aren't encouraged along the path to transition. It's horrific that our culture supports them not reaching that happiness with their natural bodies, and instead insists that it's moral and compassionate to begin giving them injections.
I can't stress enough, I'm NOT trying to criticise trans people themselves, though I know it must seem like it. It's disgusting that some trans people are attacked, and I desperately hope that that can be combatted. My frustration is with the confusion itself that some feel; and with the societal (and profit making) forces that have fuelled the reported^ increase which in fact do not have have others' best interests at heart.
but being trans is not about the clothes you wear. Some trans people *need* hormones and surgery. For them, these treatments can literally be life saving. I have had a double mastectomy and am *so much happier* since I had it. I have also been taking testosterone for 5 years and am much happier for that too. Now tell me, what right do you have to tell me this treatment wasn't necessary or was even harmful for me?also, no a girl is not necessarily what you are if you have xx chromosomes. I have xx chromosomes but I'm a guy.I don't want to argue. There are things I want to respond with, but because this is such a sensitive subject, I think I should just shut up. I don't think that what I've said is wrong, but restating it with more reasoning won't achieve anything positive. All that matters to me so far as you yourself are concerned, is that I believe God loves you beyond measure.
You say abuse of transgender people is abhorrent then literally go on to abuse them by denying their existence! New level of cognitive dissonance right here
How, exactly, is what I've written abuse? Could you please clarify quoting specific sentences from the paragraph I wrote? I'm really, really not intending to be abusive - and your stating that what I wrote is abuse suggests somewhat that you're unaware of the severe mistreatment that some trans people do face. I haven't used derogatory language, nor criticised people themselves/individuals. I'm aware that some trans people face physical attacks, which is grotesque and heartbreaking - disagreeing with a societal force, and wishing that people were able to cope with the bodies they were born in, is not the same thing.
“If a person is XX, a girl is what they are and that’s it”. It’s untrue and denies the fact that trans women are women, just like trans men are men.
My statement wasn't abuse, just biology. But, crucially, all people - very, very, very much including those who are trans - are equally precious and deserving of respect as individuals, so I really don't want this to become an argument.

Does voluntourism help? Here are the questions to ask before you go
Of course it could be of some help - but surely, in most instances, the money that the trip costs would actually make far more impact on the cause if it were given to charities already working there? And flying around the globe has a huge carbon footprint.
I sponsor several children, each costing £300/year - if I travelled to their countries, it would cost me that much and more, and I wouldn't be able to do anywhere near what the staff (from their communities, employed by the sponsorship money to teach and mentor them) achieve.
We need to consider what's most cost effective, and isn't contributing to Global warming.
90% of donations end up lost in administration fees, corruption, etc. I have volunteered in many places and donated money to others. Depends on the country, the cause, the organisation, etc 
That's a popular myth - how, exactly, do you know that "90% of donations end up lost in administration fees, corruption, etc"?

It’s #TwentyBiTeen, girl-on-girl culture is peaking and it’s about time
Bisexual chic – from Bella Hadid’s virtual kiss to Ariana Grande’s hits – is having a moment and the mainstream is embracing it
Of course the mainstream is embracing it, it's intriguing or arousing for some people - but according to much commentary I've observed, many of LGBT people are angry about this fetishisation. Both Bella Hadid’s virtual kiss and Ariana Grande’s girl/girl kiss have been lambasted as queer baiting. Are you, Guardian, putting an attempt at virtue signalling and point scoring in the culture wars above the feelings of actual LGBT people?
   
Muslim Women Protest Burkini Ban in France Swimming Pool
The women protesting say they were inspired by Rosa Parks.
Whilst it's obviously wrong to ban swimsuits, I really don't think that this should be compared to the oppression of black people in the US. Rosa Parks needed to use the bus for work, and was expected to get up, whilst physically exhausted, because she was treated as inferior to a white person. Swimming is a leisure activity, and everyone has the option of wearing other swimsuits. I myself can't go swimming because I'm too anxious about a body deformity, but though is like to go swimming, life is ok. And ultimately, God didn't actually ban typical swimsuits. It's also concerning that some Muslim women are pressured into wearing things that they don't want to by others in their communities.
Again, I'm not endorsing the bans, I just think that this shouldn't be compared to the civil rights movement.

  
Obviously one would hope that all parents would love their children unconditionally (and it's tragic when this issue divides families) - but I think it's pretty wrong to be talking about the potential sexuality of small children for the sake of culture wars. It's none of our business, and children, in particular, shouldn't be defined by the adult activities they might do behind closed doors. I think that this questioning of William was more about trying to annoy those who aren't pro-LGBT than anything - and kids shouldn't be used for someone else's point scoring.
But then those same people look at two toddlers holding hands and say "OMG THEYRE GONNA GET MAAAARRIIIIIEEEED SO CUUUUUTE"
Which same people? Indeed, it would be daft to talk about toddlers future marriages.
I had a boyfriend when I was 6 - but that was my decision and I'd have felt seriously violated by anyone discussing my sexuality or future marriage - not least in the press.

  
Jesus is God and our primary example of how God wants us to live – and He taught us that those in need, including those from opposing nations, are neighbours that we should help (the parable is so well known that we still use the word Samaritan in common language).
The parable of the sheep and the goats makes it indisputable that God wants us to help the underprivileged.
And in Matthew 22:37-9, “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”
   
Really? I reckon that watching politicians have a food fight could be pretty amusing.
If a person wants to be PM, they should be capable of keeping potentially diplomatically dangerous statements to themselves.
but it's alright to interfere in there private life what hypocracy 
Asking Boris what happened when an argument caused so much noise that police were called is a question, not interference. He could tell the truth, which the relevant member of his private life knows anyway, but he won't because he's done something that the public, who he wants to rule, would be concerned by. That's in no way comparable to saying daft things about Macron - he's entitled to have opinions on Macron, but expressing things that are offensive will only hinder the country's prospects, and that makes him unqualified to be PM.
You keep blowing your trumpet for the e.u and I blow mine for the u.k my beloved country which is not yours stick to macron were you one of those who called for the police to go with b.b.c into cliff richards house you nosey parkers
LOL, according to who is this your country and not mine? I've lived here all my life (as have my parents, as did my grandparents, my great grand parents, and so on) - and I'm not pro-EU or Mcron at all, I simply know that we need a PM with more common sense.

So much worse than simply "not backed up" - scripture suggests to me that what she's doing is of Satan.
Interesting the analogy to Martin Luther's reformation and what Bolz-Weber proposes. The article asserts that while Luther's reformation was Scriptural, hers isn't. 1.2 billion Catholics would disagree either are based in Scripture.
Without wanting to argue, whether or not peole agree doesn't tell us whether or not the reformation was scriptural. Something could even partially wrongly interpret a text, yet still be based on that text. Many people would disagree that Christianity as a whole is based in reality - that doesn't mean that Christianity is not real (ie, those people, despiite being of large numbers, are wrong).
Obviously, threatening or abusing people is utterly wrong - but why do people feel the need to dress in drag and read to children? It's not going to convert anyone who's on the fence about supporting LGBT into an ally, only make some parents feel more anxious. And ultimately, drag is often linked to discussion about sex - so why the frack to do you want children involved?

It seems odd for Vice use a private part as slur term when it spends so much time lauding private parts.
  
We, white people, live in relative wealth as a result of the injustices that have left other countries grossly impoverished. It's right for us to donate to the organisations that have been thoroughly checked and are working efficiently to lift people permanently out of poverty.

Seriously, Sun, what is wrong with you? "Extreme Weight Loss ... Wow - she looks incredible" - obviously you've not experienced Anorexia, but do you not at least have the common sense to be aware that some people do? Are you too ignorant to know that messages like this contribute to destroyed lives, and to deaths, or do you just not care?

I look forward to speaking with Prime Minister Modi about the fact that India, for years having put very high Tariffs against the United States, just recently increased the Tariffs even further. This is unacceptable and the Tariffs must be withdrawn!
Why is it unacceptable? Your GDP per capita is almost 10x that of India.
so we should just shove money to them because they are poor at the game of business....? We could just cut them out completely if they play hard ball if they really want to. Plus their living standards are much less than that of an American. So it actually isn’t that large of a gap. Might want to learn a bit more on those Economics.... 
Poor at business? No, they're poor, and Western nations are rich, because of centuries of theft. Eg https://www.aljazeera.com/.../britain-stole-45-trillion...
"their living standards are much less than that of an American"? Is that what you meant to write? Indeed their living standards, on average, are far lower - that's why it's right for them to benefit more from trade. It's not the same as just "shoving money to them" - but, frankly, if we have enough money to squander it on cafe beverages, flights to go on holidays, etc, we should be shoving money to those who don't even havve clean water, or who rely on farming but have so little crop yeild that they commit suicide.
 
She is from England, she does not understand business or how the whole economy thing works. All she knows is how important the queen is. India needs to take care of India, if America is successful it is because we earned it. We are not responsible for every country on earth, time for all the other countries to do what we did and become self sufficient. This isn't Robin Hood. Money is not given it is earned.
LOL, why do you think " All she knows is how important the queen is"? With all due respect, you evidently know nothing about Britain. The Queen is nice, but not at all politically "important", and we all know it here.
Ha, "if America is successful it is because we earned it"? According to what authority? America made itself wealthy predominantly by stealing land and forcing slaves to farm it, and now through corporations exploiting other nations. Both your country and mine are wealthy because of injustice, not because we "earned it". It's not our fault personally, but it means that we don't deserve what we have, and we have a responsibility to help those born into the world's most severe poverty.
Also, God commands us repeatedly to help the poor, specifically including those of other nations, but I don't know wehether or not you're interested in Him.

blaming Americans here and now, for other countries or old families and the reason how we got here, is like blaming my family for being German and Jewish people dying, yet they immigrated to the US before those wars. Can’t say the second statement with a straight face and be right so the first doesn’t work either. So nice try on your long shot, but epic fail with liberal logic.
I'm not "blaming Americans here and now" for the past, I already said that "It's not our fault personally, but it means that we don't deserve what we have, and we have a responsibility to help those born into the world's most severe poverty." - we should be more supportive of the development of impoverished countries,m where there are peole in poverty worse than we can imagine. Whether or not people happen to have "business skills" (though most of the wealth of your nation and mine is the result of theft, not skills - as well as colonialism, check out this - https://www.theguardian.com/.../aid-in-reverse-how-poor... ) doesn't determine whether they deserve to live comfortably or not.
yes we have a high GDP but we also have 330 plus million people living in this country. Such a stupid comment you just posted. We've had successful leaders which enriched this country over the years much more than any other country has ever made. Your comment is like saying oh you worked more than me and you were more successful than me so you should give me some of your money so it's even. Just shut your foreign mouth.
LOL, I specifically referred to GSP per capita, not GDP - ie, the amount of money PER ERSON, after a nation's wealth has been imagined as equally divided by every citezen, (and adjusted for differwent costs of living between countries, PPP) is nearly 10x higher in the US than India. But note, since you're keen to boast about the size of your population, that India's is 3x greater.

I am NOT trying to dismiss the severity of hate crime - but numbers have gone up mainly because of policies to record more, via campaigns encouraging more people to report and to expand the definition of hate crime. I'm really, really not suggesting that we shouldn't be concerned about this issue, but it's important to analyse it properly.

Ford dealership is giving a free Bible and gun to car buyers for a July 4 promo
NB, Jesus' teachings definitely suggest He's anti-gun.
There weren't any guns back then.
I'm well aware of that. I'm referring to numerous teachings about how He teaches us to live since we often need to discern which stances He would take today (because we've chosen to follow Him, believing He's God and thus knows best what we should do - because He proved Himself by various means but most crucially on account of the historical case for His resurrection).
Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword.
I'm not suggesting that Jesus would oppose kitchen knives. A sword would have been necessary for practical purposes, and entirely normal for people who were travelling at that time.
Jesus told us that the most important command after loving God is to love others; that if someone hits us on the cheek, we should let them hit the other cheek; and that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword".

It's obviously, very wrong - but BoJo wants to cut over £6bn tax from the nation's wealthiest people, The royal family are trivial by comparison, we should be discussing the bigger sums - yet apparently loads of people want BoJo to be PM.

Boy goes to leavers' ball in pink dress and is crowned Prom Queen
He should be SO proud, his peers clearly are as they voted for him and accept his art and his calling.
His "calling"? Who called? I'm fairly sure that that phrase derives from belief in God calling a person to do something - so in this^ situation, what do you mean?
  
Judi Dench Adopts 3 Orangutans in Campaign to Save Rainforest From Palm Oil Destruction
This is what we owe our closest relatives — the orangutans."
No, our closest relatives are other humans trapped in unimaginable poverty. It's obviously, great to care about animals, but it depresses me how often people put them before human beings.
Obviously, student debt is unfair - but shouldn't the aim be to make it possible to enter a decent job without spending years learning things that you don't use?
Of course, some of what's learned at university is vital - but a substantial amount is information that's not made use of in one's career - and a person shouldn't need to have a university degree to get onto a rewarding career path.
It should be easier for people to learn whilst working so that people can support themselves and their families whilst progressing up the career ladder.
Otherwise, huge amounts of public money that could be spent on healthcare etc simply feeds the coffers of university bosses.(NB, I certainly don't mean by that last statement that there should be no government funding for people to attend university at all - just that Bernie's strategy might not give the best net outcome for addressing inequality)
why is student debt unfair? Who told you the world owes you?
The world owes me nothing, This isn't about me, I'm in the UK, but I'm concerned for people in the US who have to spend insane amounts on university because it's otherwise impossible to get a sustaining job.
As others have said - this is grossly hypocritical. My hugest sympathies for her miscarriages, truly - but it's vile to acknowledge that the unborn as a baby then campaign passionately in support of abortion as she's done. The word baby seems ill-defined, but biologically, the unborn is a living human, thus I'm horrified by the vigour with which Creasy and others have supported enabling the killing of those tiny humans. If she thinks of her own unborn as a baby, why does she fight to make it possible for others to be chopped up?
This is the thing - boys and girls don't have to adhere to stereotypes, that doesn't mean that they aren't boys if they're XY and girls if they're XX. XY is what boy means, XX is what girl means, and each person is an individual with an endless array of unique traits that makes them pricelessly valuable. We should be supporting kids in being OK with the bodies they're in and then pursuing their individual interests, not endorsing the idea that anyone is "born in the wrong body".
NB - that's not, in any way, to condone abuse of non-binary or trans people - such bullying is evil - and yes, I'm aware that a small percentage of people are intersex.
Reparations for gay people? That's a gross disrespect to the African Americans who've inherited poverty because of the barbarism enacted against their ancestors. Many white people ultimately inherit wealth that was passed down having been acquired through the labour of slaves, whilst many African Americans are born into relatively impoverished homes without opportunities that others have - THAT is the point of reparations. To equivocate minority sexualities is absurd.
Jesus has been abandoned. But not by the democrats but by the Republicans. Jesus taught us not to serve God and money. Our current capitalist system serves money. Jesus told us to be merciful to foreigners. Jesus told us to love our enemies. 
You're very right that Jesus commands us to love our neighbours, and it's baffling how so many Republicans ignore that. But it's not as simple as Republicans vs Democrats - each individual has their own set of views on different issues, and we need to debate the issues rather than put people into overly simplified categories. It's very evident that many Democrats have abandoned God, but within each party, there's variation. I'm in the UK where I vote Left because of my concern for social justice - but if I were in the US, I couldn't vote Democrat (not to say I'd vote Republican, I'd probably abstain) given the fervency of support for abortion I've seen from all of their leadership candidates. We need to focus on Jesus, rather than partisanship.
   
Image may contain: ultrasound and text
So...? I hate abortion, I don't hate the people who - wrongly I believe - have had them.
Do people think that pro-lifers are desperate for those who've had abortions to feel shame? How would that help anything? We aren't trying to make people feel shame, we want fewer people to choose abortion in future. This play is clearly aiming to make money from joking about the deaths of tiny humans, risking reducing the likelihood that people will take the decision seriously themselves - that's what sucks.

cells not humans!
Humans are comprised of cells, how are you defining humans? What do you think the picture shows?
It shows a fetus at 16 weeks, even though "90% of all abortions were carried out on women who were under 13 weeks into their pregnancy and 73% of those were under 10 weeks into their pregnancy" so it's a blatant attempt to use misinformation
It's not an attempt at misinformation, I didn't claim that the majority of abortions happen at 16 weeks. And that far more abortions happen earlier doesn't change the fact that millions of tiny humans at 16 weeks gestation or more have been aborted.
But you intentionality chose in image of a fetus that is in the upper gestational stage to illustrate your point. Millions of all gestational stages have been aborted, and will continue to be so. We can give women the correct information and health care to ensure that they can make choices about their own health. Or we can use emotive images to try and control them.
Correct information? The week no. is on the picture, so if a woman is considering aborting at erlier stage she'll know that this image isn't exactly representative forthe unborn that she's carrying presently, and she can easily find other information. You seem to think that a woman would just be misled, but the gestational stage is clearly labelled and an array of further information is available at her fingertips.
Why is it "emotive"? Abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks - and if that's fine, why be emotive about it? Of course, I don't think it's fine, the reason that it's emotive is that abortion destroys a tiny human, but you seem to want that to be made less clear by objecting to a labelled scan image.

If you can't see why using an image of a 16 week old fetus would be considered emotive, and calling a fetus a "tiny human" is manipulating the correct information, then I imagine that you are also ignorant of the plethora of misinformation out there. Agencies in America are allowed to lie to pregnant women. Religious factions are constantly trying to control our bodies the world over. If you want to discuss the medical decisions women take about their health without being emotive, then leave the ultrasound imagery out
But I can see why it's emotive, that's the point. The reason that emotion is felt us because abortion is a tragedy, and our society should stop whitewashing it. We feel emotive because it's wrong, abortion shouldn't be happening. Hiding images is not an honest way to help women make decisions.
I write "tiny human" because a lot of people repeatedly misunderstand "foetus" - it means offspring in Latin, but many people think that it means that the unborn is not alive or not human. A tiny (living) human is what it is, so that's what I write. I wouldn't argue at the embryo stage, but within 2 months there's evidence of touch sensation, and by 12 weeks all organs are in place and the unborn simply needs to grow - as written on the NHS's website.

"Abortion shouldn't be happening" ; you can't apply your choices to everyone else. Abortion can and does happen for a great many very valid reasons. If you take away the ability for that to be decided by the individual and carried out by professionals in a safe environment, you don't stop it happening. It becomes a dangerous backstreet business that kills and mains. Or those who can't access that are forced into harmful situations.
Wishing the world works the way you believe is best doesn't make it so. So why use a self confessed emotive picture to influence others? Quite simply because the "pro-life" argument isn't one that can be supported by fact
Why? Because I try to comment quickly on posts so that my comment isn't too hidden amongst others, and that image was the first in my pictures folder. It's clearly labelled so it's not dishonest, but you're still advocating deception by arguing that images shouldn't be shown.
Not supported by fact? Which facts prove that it's ok to kill an unborn human? Clearly, we aren't going to agree, but the fact is that the unborn is alive and human, and that at 16weeks, it looks as that image shows. A recent study found that at 16weeks, the unborn's facial features respond to music played by the mother's belly. It's also a fact that rape and foetal anomalies (combined) account for just several % of abortions. So there's already the choice not to have sex (which, trust me, is fine - but there are also many NHS provided contraceptives to choose from, as well as the morning after pill) and the choice to offer a newborn to a couple desperate for a new baby. Me commenting doesn't prevent a woman being able to have an abortion, but I don't believe that one person should be able to take away any choice whatsoever from another human, once it has brainwaves, by having it killed in abortion.
Nb supposedly safe abortions are not entirely safe. A woman died just 1.5 miles from where I am now from a Marie Stopes abortion - and some studies have found that abortion contributes to depression.

  
Good Seriously, we should all buy less - we have more than we need and a lot goes to waste or ends up in landfill. If we're going to make the world a better place, we need to stop handing over money to corporations for items that aren't necessary. That reduces our contribution to planetry destruction, and could mean that some of us give more to those elsewhere in the world who have nothing.

It's not as though this outburst (that led to the police being called) came out of the blue from a typically sensible, controlled individual - his lack of restraint might be amusing, but it's not what we need from a leader.
He's made the grossly racist statement about African people that he has he wants to reduce the money available for public services by cutting tax on the very wealthiest (ie. luckiest - many on far, far, far lower wages work just as hard or harder); he's made such mistakes as worsening Nazanin ZR's situation and wasting tens of millions on the garden bridge....He shouldn't be PM. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/pajq48/timeline-boris-johnson-mistakes-bad
NB - those who are keen Brexiteers and want BoJo because they see him as being on their sr side should keep in mind that he was long undecided as to which side to support in the referendum,, and wrote essays for position. Earlier comments in his career were pro-European - He chose Leave, being ambivalent, likely for the sake of his own potential political power.
never a good idea to just to conclusions. The Guardian reported this on Saturday, quoting The Times and they did not dispute it:...Did it ever cross your mind it was reported to the police to make the story more attractive to the press? Somebody that is really concerned does not record it first of all and then call the police. They call the police straight away.
Who said that they recorded and waited to call the police? They might have recorded whilst waiting for the police. But given that one wouldn't want to waste police time, but hitting a record button is easy, one could well begin recording whilst unsure whether the situation justified calling he police.
That she was angrier and he was calmer doesn't tell us that we shouldn't worry about him, it tells us that he did/said something htat made her furious.
But as I wrote, irrespective of this incident, thre are plenty of reasons that BoJo shouldn't be PM.


The Bible says that people should not have gay sex - that's distinct from simply having gay orientation, and either way, the Bible makes it clear that no one should be bullied in any way. We ALL sin, and that's why Christ died for us. He made religious leaders to leave alone a woman they'd been about to stone to death for her sexual sin, and said to her "Go and sin no more" . Christians should be welcoming everyone, urging everyone to fight the sin in their lives (which God helps us with), and recognising that we're sinners too.
If you’re truly a Christian, then the New Testament supersedes the Old.
Of course the NT supersedes the OT - but Jesus affirms God's design of one man and one woman, and Paul warns against sexual "immorality" (sex outside of God's plan - I'm not calling gay sex immoral since we use the word differently now) and that gay sex separates people from God.
Crucially, sex is not at all necessary to enjoy life (as I'm finding myself, though I'm straight) and I know of gay Christians who are single/celibate and undeniably happy and in love with God - they're also sick of people trying to justify gay sex for Christians, because they've concluded, theologically, that those attempts at justification are mistaken, and they can fund them hurtful.
The real issues are people being unkind to gay people - which is unChristian, and our society's obsession with sex. In fact, friendships, family and a relationship with God can more than satisfy.
Actually it says "men should lay with young boys"...nothing about gay sex.
I think you miswrote that...
And I'm well aware that some people have tried to make the claim that I think you're making, but it's a claim that's been dismantled by plenty of academics, including some who are themselves gay.

It's called a vasectomy. Also, you can actually just not have sex, it's in fact not necessary for enjoying life.

A History of the Bible: A belter of a book
I endlessly see people presume that it's pure fiction without finding out about it, entirely on the basis of naturalism and wishful thinking. It's full of symbolism and contextually complex accounts, but it's simply not the mythology that so many people want to assume that it is. And views amongst scholars vary hugely - so this^ book about the Bible, and others, each need to be read with consideration of the potential for bias and weighing up of differing perspectives.
Most importantly, the Gospel events are in fact more historically accredited than other history by several measures - as absurd as it might seem that Jesus rose, it deserves exploration given the potential significance. http://www.bible.ca/.../topical-the-earliest-new...

The classic God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac.Discuss.
Discuss? It's a huge topic. There are plenty of articles easily accessible that explain the issue, have you tried them?
Briefly - some passages in the Old Testament reflect the writers, men of an entirely different culture to ours (our culture in fact being shaped by Jesus' teachings, though we forget it often) who keenly boasted of success in battle, at a time when barbarism was the norm.
Many people of pagan tribes were so violent that they keenly sacrificed their children to their gods. Ultimately, God, at times, may have endorsed war against these tribes because, ultimately, He wanted to bring an end to that evil. And consider - He is just, and able to bring the innocents caught up in the battles to heaven if that was right, and their suffering living in the discomfort of BC desert amongst child killers would be over.
The events of the Old Testament were a lead up to Jesus coming - and it's Jesus who actually demonstrates clearly who God is.

 
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
 
Windrush victim dies while waiting for payout to visit mother's grave in Jamaica
metro.co.uk
He's the London mayor, and he has no control over this issue, the fault is with the Home office. What, exactly, do you think he's done writing?
  
Indeed abuse of trans people MUST be stopped - but to suggest that the debate about trans athletes could be "perfectly shut down" is ignorance of biology and entirely disrespectful of athletes. You're supposed to be informing us, The Independent, not behaving like a child in an argument.
It's far more exciting to spend money, however much one has, on helping the world's poorest people than on buying things for oneself that aren't needed.
We can all too easily forget, when we pay attention to celebrities, that we ourselves are in fact wealthy compared to much of humanity. If we contemplate everyday privileges that some others lack, such as clean water on tap; an endless selection of food; secure, snug homes; endless entertainment via TV and the internet; education and opportunities, etc, we can find huge joy in them. We can then use money that we might spend on non-necessities - such as pampering, holidays, Starbucks, cinema tickets etc to pay for far more exciting things - for example, child sponsorship, transforming a life for $38/month.
  
Maryland 'peace cross' can stand on public land, U.S. high court rules
It baffles me that this bothers anyone. No one is forcing you to do anything.
Crucially(literally, the word comes from crucifixion) Jesus died for anyone willing to truly accept Him into their hearts. Everyone gets to make their own choice about that. If you reject Him, THIS^ is just a big piece of stone to you, so why get flustered?
as long as they allow Baphomet, or a giant Islamic Crescent, or other religious icons, we're all good.
I wouldn't be offended by another faith's statue, though I'd feel sad that there was such fervour in rejecting Jesus has increased so much that a statue as such would be put up. To atheists wanting this cross removed, it represents nothing, so putting up something else isn't equivocal. Further, the US has a Christian heritage (and, when people have GENUINELY been following Christ - as opposed to just calling themselves Christian whilst enacting human selfishness, that has done tremendous good for society), which is how this cross ended up there, so a statue to another faith wouldn't be comparable.
But I can't stress enough, it's people rejecting Jesus that makes me sad - this statue in itself is unimportant. I'm well aware of the fact that very few people now follow Him, and whether those rejecting Him are Muslim, Atheist or something else, it breaks my heart. That's because the study I've done has led me to conclude that Jesus did in fact rise from death thus demonstrating that He could be trusted in offering eternal life - and my experience, and that of countless others, is that genuinely accepting Jesus brings more joy and fulfillment than anything else. So I by no means believe that I, or Christians in general, are superior; nor can Christianity be forced on anyone. I'm just sad about what the desire to take this cross down demonstrates.

I see the tax issue - and would make it the responsibility of its supporters to "maintain" it. But can anyone actually find data on what's being spent on its maintenance? What's being done to it that taxes are being spent on? And how would that figure sit as a proportion of tax expenditure?
Land being public property doesn't mean that everyone is going to like everything on it. The question is how is it doing you any harm?

show me where he died n buried.. If u cant no stupid jesus existed.. Other then for people to use the ideology to rape kids.
Jesus taught us to treat others as we want to be treated, and that hurting children is the worst thing people can do. That child abuse happens is a disgusting reflection of human evil, and hapens in all sectors - people calling themselves Christians when they aren't actually following Christ doesn't determine what Jesus is like. Why do you think that Jesus didn't exist? Have you tried reading/listening to the scholars who've concluded that Jesus died and rose to weigh up the matter for yourself?
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

its maintained by american tax dollars. Thats legit all that needs to be said. I dont want my tax dollars going towards anything religious and a cross is in fact religious.
How do you define "religious"/"religion" ? Seriously, many pastors draw a distinction between religion and the Gospel, criticising the former. Either way, it's a non-sequitter. The dogma of separation of Church and State that is so religiously held to doesn't answer my question - why does a piece of stone bother you so much? What impact does it have on you? It's not causing pain or trauma, it's not releasing noise or a smell. As I've said, it's maintenance should be funded by donations rather than tax - but the amount is negligible, and ultimately that money simply ends up paying workers.
The cross is where Jesus died for EVERYONE - it's not a symbol of superiority or exclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Your last sentence is the problem. Replace it with “Allah and his messenger Mohammed (PBUH) are here for everyone.” And also replace the cross with a crescent and star of Islam. Now how do you feel?
That's not what Islam teaches. 
Irrelevant. I could say the same for the comment on Christianity. The question remains.
But you'd be wrong (to say the same of Christianity) - Islam and Christianity are not simply things that we can each have our own opinions on, they are distinct sets of very different texts and teachings.
Sir, Germany was considered, in 1939 as the most churched country in Europe. Most low level Nazis were Christian.
No, Nazis were not Christian, because Christian means to love Jesus and thus desire to emulate Him - and His actions and teachings were entirely contrary to Nazism. Plenty of people throughout the centuries have called themselves Christians because they like the label, but calling oneself something doesn't mean that one is, and people calling themselves Christians whilst acting in an unChristlike way certainly don't define who Jesus was.
The Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian. Lutherans and Catholics mostly. Their belt buckles said“God is with us” Hitler claimed to be a Catholic himself and referred to god in both his book and speeches. Hitler belongs to Christians. 
 no, people calling themselves something doesn't mean that they are, nor define that thing. I could call myself a football fan, but given that I don't actually follow football at all, I'd be wrong, and I certainly wouldn't define what football is. Nazis calling themselves Christians doesn't mean that they actually were, and it makes no sense for you to judge Christ by their actions, specifically because they were doing the opposite of what Jesus taught.
You are a pathetic self righteous imbecile. 
What exactly - which phrases - suggests that I'm self righteous?
Says who? Can You tell me who wrote the Bible? And where they got their facts from? PROOF! I NEED ACTUAL FACTS PLS! I'll wait! LMAO
The Bible is a compilation of texts written by a number of different people - and different texts within it corroborate each other, with further corroboration from other texts from the Church Fathers and texts from other historical writers at the time. I personally became convinced of the resurrection after reading Who Moved The Stone, which helps one to see why the Gospel accounts can be trusted.
And you stating the obvious doesn't explain ANYTHING GraceDalton....but nice try
Have you tried reading/listening to the scholars who've concluded that Jesus died and rose to weigh up the matter for yourself? https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

Anti-abortion posters plastered on buses in Australia
The bus company has since taken the 'appalling' posters down
Appalling? How, exactly? Is it only OK to lie to women and pretend that the tiny human isn't what it is, so one can feel fine about killing it?
Learn biology. It’s a collection of cells that early on not a baby.
Learn biology? I've been studying biomedical sciences at university. I didn't say that it's a baby, but at 4 weeks, it's an embryo with primordial organ structures, not only a collection of cells (technically, we're all collections of cells). Personally, I'm concerned about the millions of abortions that happpen far later than 4 weeks, at stages where the unborn has brain functionality.
   
God hates a lot of Trump's attitudes and actions. Jesus' teachings make that clear, but also, for example,
Proverbs 6:16-19 "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."
the wise thing to do is to support those who are sympathetic to a just cause. Trump cares a lot more about his country and people than what we see in many other parties. All of those vices in that Proverbs scripture are easily found in the without boundaries, sex all over the place, abort when you want, climate fanatics in the democrat party.
"America First" is not a just cause. It is seeking to perpetuate the inJUSTice of America being far wealthier than most of humanity, and all of humanity is in fact equal before God. God repeatedly tells us to be generous, compassionate and selfless. Trump is not.
I am furious about the Dems' support for abortion, so couldn't vote for them.
So, you preferred a president who was Muslim through and through??? You must be doing well in a Christian country that gave you everything.......ditch Trump and you will soon be living in a hell of your own making.
LOL, I'm in the UK. How was Obama "Muslim"?
Nice sentiments Grace, but humans are not yet ready for global love-ins. God gives men a choice, and the best we can hope for is a strong leader like Trump, who has your best interests at heart. Without him, the Global elites who let me tell you, are without humanity, will enforce multiculturalism to the point when Islam will implement Sharia Law, then you'll be covered from head to toe, not allowed to go out without your husband, as partners are not permitted.
You'll be circumcised, allowed to be beaten and forever be a mammal only, which is the legal term for women. Believe me,
Mr Trump is our ONLY HOPE of living free, as safe as possible and with our choices intact.

His mother was, and he is[Christian]. Presbyterian actually. I'm from Britain and I know that.....do you know your own president? I think not.
How, exactly, do you know that Trump is a Christian? Countless people call themselves Christians because they like the label, but in fact it means, by definition, to genuinely love Christ so much that you truly desire to follow Him. I'm not saying that Trump isn't a Christian, I can't know, but Jesus said that His followers would be clear from their actions, and some of Trump's actions strongly suggest that he isn't trying to emulate Jesus.
Why are you certain that without Trump, Islam will take over?

If you go back to [Obama's] administration while he was president. He NEVER mentioned Christians, he backed Muslim integration, and now, five times a day in New York the wailing call to prayer is heard. Obama was all the way LEFT which loves globalism, Islam and no borders anywhere. The left are responsible for the catastrophic state of both our countries today........totally supported by Obama.
How exactly did Obama back integration in such a way as to show that he was "Muslim through and through"? That there are now calls to prayer (where did you get that information?) would only suggest a greater number of Muslims, largely because they have a higher birthrate.
Whilst aspects of Islam are indeed deeply concerning, most Muslims are sfe or even make a positive contribution to society. Our priority, far beyond anything else, must be to serve God by sharing the Gospel with those around us - Muslim or otherwise, and by helping those in need IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY SHARE OUR NATIONALITY as God repeatedly commands.

   
Anti-abortion ballot drives to start within days in Michigan
(I comment simply with 12 week pregnancy image)

Grace Dalton's photo.

12 weeks. Incompatible with life outside of the womb.
Defined how? They ARE alive. Unless the natural process by which we're all here is interrupted, they will grow to be the same size that we are. Right now, they're just months further back in their lifespan than a baby. They're nevertheless human. I wouldn't argue about embryos - but by this^ stage they already have some brain function. Note that in 99% of cases, they are in the womb because of the woman's choice (only 1% of abortions are due to rape). where are your pictures of unwanted babies that were beaten to death?
Explain? Seriously, how many babies born to women who'd wanted and not been able to abort them end up beaten to death? Babies being beaten at all, let alone to death is abhorrent beyond words, but that doesn't justify abortion.
Does it honestly not concern you that tiny humans just a few months younger than babies can be vacuumed to death or chopped up?
 
when people twist scientific facts, that is abhorrent. When people try to force their religious views on others, that is the most abhorrent.
How am I "forcing" views on others? I'm only commenting, which we all do here. When an abortion happens, one person's view is genuinely being forced on another - one human is killed because of another's "view". I'm not forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I'm just typing.
When did I mention religion?

Week8, Size of a raspberry
Why does that give someone else - who's already made a choice (unless raped, but again, that's only the case in 1% of abortions) - the right to destroy that tiny human? A newborn couldn't survive on their own. All of us rely on others to survive - those who provide our water and food. Relying on others doesn't mean that a person can be killed - especially when the person on whom they rely is the person who put them in htat position of reliance.
Have you considered that not all abortions happen because the fetus is healthy?
I'm well aware of the tragedy of severe deformitiy - however it's by no means accurately diagnosed in utero, ie. there are plenty of unborn diagnosed with severe deformities who are born healthy. If, tragically, they do pass away hours after birth, they could save the lives of other babies in need of organ transplants.
It can well be more comforting for a parent who knows that their baby will live for only hours to have an hold them for that time than to have the ache of aborting them.
Crucially, only a tiny, tiny minority of abortions happen because of deformities anyway. I wouldn't argue about these cases anyway, I'm debating abortion because of the huge majority - likely over 98% (see statistics and analysis here - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/.../abortion/abreasons.html ) who are aborted without any deformity or health issue, nor because of rape or threat to the mother.
NB, abortion is also dangerous, for example, https://lifecharity.org.uk/.../ambulances-called-778.../
and harmful to mental health - https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE...


There are plenty of adverts that mislead people into thinking that they need to buy certain things to enjoy life, and make them forget to enjoy what they have. There are adverts that encourage us to
replace items with newer versions far sooner than we need to, contributing to the depletion of natural resources and to pollution. There are adverts that con desperate people into wasting the little money they have on gambling and lottery tickets. There are adverts that force people to hate their bodies and feel unavoidably anxious.
Those adverts are harmful, I don't think that stereotypes are harming us anymore.
Advertising doesn't force you to do anything. Grow a spine, and take responsibility for your own actions.
"take responsiblity for my own actions"? I don't buy any of the things I see advertised. But some evidently can't - some of them on account of disadvantage leading to desperation (such that they can be lured into bingo and gambling). And the fact that I can avoid buying fast fashion, holidays via aeroplanes etc, doesn't mean that I can't be frustrated about the impact those businesses have on our planet (and, more importantly, its poorest people).
  
Trump vows to deport 'millions' of migrants, but it's unclear if there is a plan for mass arrests and removals
Trump regularly references God, but the Bible makes it clear that God wants us to help refugees....
Jesus also said follow the law of the land. They are not refugees. They have crossed the border illegally, they are therefor illegal aliens.
Where exactly did Jesus say that? Can you give a reference? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that those who show no compassion to migrants are breaking what Jesus said was most important after loving God. 
Love how Lefties use the Bible to justify things that they are for, but deny what the Bible says about things they disagree with. Shameful
How are you defining "lefties"? Which of my views denies the Bible and is shameful?
I suspect that you're simply making resumptions and putting me in a box. But that's a logical fallacy (ie, illogical) and I don't fit in a box.

God has killed more people than any being in the history of the world. I don't think he's the one to make a comparison with.
How do you define "God killing"? God creates life, and eventually, life on Earth ends and He gives the option, through Jesus, of life in His presence, without the frustrations of life on Earth. Which deaths are you blaming God for when you compare them to killings for "other beings"? Why do you think that you know better than God about how long lives should last?
This is the land of laws and rules. How’s it working out for you in London? 
Oh dear, have you been conned by your right wing press into thinking that London is a war zone? Are you aware that the murder rate here in London (murders per 100,000 people) is less than a third that of the US?
The violence that exists in certain areas is due to gang/drug wars, not immigrants
 
but we are to take care of our own people first! Do you have a well balanced financial plan by which we can house. Feed, cloth, educate and meet the many medical needs of the 100's thousands of illegals who have entered and are still entering our borders???
Linda Hooks Hutto those of "our own people" who are in need are in need because wealth is grossly unfairly distributed - multimillionaires haven't worked proportionately hundreds of times harder than people with hundreds of times less wealth than them, they have huge wealth primarily because they've been lucky. The very richest people should be taxed more to help the poorest - and everyone here has the privilege of living in a nation made rich through grossly unfair exploitation of other countries, so we have no right to disregard those born into the impoverished countries left poor because of that exploitation.

52 ideas that changed the world - 1. Evolution
Darwin believed that we inherit a mixture of our parents' traits because their body fluids mix during sex. He had no clue about how DNA works, and, crucially, how interdependent it is. His theory was cemented using hoax fossils, and wishful thinking by anti-theists.
The microevolution of variation within species is obvious - but the neo-Darwinian dogma that all life evolved from nothing by natural selection alone is more debated amongst the scientific community than the public is led to believe.
For example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187878/
://www.reasons.org/.../nobel-winning-dna-research...
evolution is a proven FACT, its the 21st century and we still have to explain this!! but you just stick to Noah and his magical zoo boat that re-populated the entire earths animal and plant life in under 6,000 yrs, yes ignorance is clearly bliss. ๐Ÿ˜
Religion = state sanctioned, controlling superstitious nonsense for the gullible.
Steven Isherwood how are you defining the evolution that you claim is a "fact"?
What did you think of the hyperlinked articles?
How far (GCSE? Alevel? Uni?) have you studied biology?
When did I mention Noah's ark?
What is it that you think I believe?
How are you defining "religion"?
I myself began to suspect that God exists whilst studying biology. Further study has convinced me further of His existence. Belief in Jesus is a separate topic, and interpretation of Genesis is another matter again, one that's unimportant by comparison. "Religion" is a word used differently by different people - to use it as a catch all term for anything relating to any belief in any gods is ignorant of the immense variation of beliefs and practices (not that I'm calling you ignorant personally). Are you aware, for example, that numerous pastors regularly criticise "religion", differentiating it from Christianity? Have you seen the spoken word piece that went viral several years ago, "Why I hate Religion but love Jesus"? "Religion" might be used to control people, but genuine Christianity (there's been plenty that's been falsely labelled as Christianity, not actually fitting its definition at all) is fundamentally different.

Prioritising serving the desires of those who'll vote Democrat, whatever happens, is not going to win the election. 48% of the public believe that abortion is morally wrong - thus, Hilary lost. I'd love to see what the Dems could achieve for social justice if they'd stop this obsession with abortion - given that they don't, do they genuinely want to advance fairer wealth distribution?
   
"...our light and temporary affliction* is producing for us an eternal glory that far outweighs our troubles. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.…" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]
I'm NOT trying to minimise the evil of slavery - but I know that God hates injustice and offers eternal bliss that will make that suffering seem brief by comparison.
  
'He's a national disgrace': Trump attacks Khan after three killed in London
It's almost funny. He has no say in who our mayor is, so I'm more worried about his lack of compassion for the underprivileged, and lack of concern about the environment.
I can't get my head around why anyone thinks that it's within the London mayor's power to end gang wars. Meanwhile, scores of people have died in the US due to guns, which Trump has lobbied for.
The murder rate in London is around 1.5 per 100,000 - higher than the UK average, but a fraction of the rate for Trump's nation, with a murder rate of 5 per 100,000
Check this out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_homicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png
    
It's nothing like The Handmaid's Tale - in the Handmaid's Tale, women are raped; forced to give up children; and kept in servitude. IRL, women can use contraception, tubal ligation and PlanB - and, importantly, sex isn't necessary to enjoy life in the first place (*I'm not debating the 1% of cases of abortion that follow rape).
I'd love to see what the Dems could achieve for social justice if they'd dro this issue and consequently take back power.
Why do people (who criticise prolifers) seem to think it's wrong to want to stop the tearing up of tiny humans?
   
'Eye-Popping': Analysis Shows Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion in Wealth Since 1989 While Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion - Bernie Sanders
Absolutely - I'm just struggling to believe that you really care about poverty given that you've bought yourself a third home.
[Criticisms]
You guys are missing my point. I'm not saying that he's equivocal to billionaires, nor negating that he's doing some good work - and I'm not saying that rich people are a different speceis as some of you imply, nor ignoring the fact that mist politicians have a lot of money. I'm saying that it's hard to believe that someone genuinely desperate to help the poor would want to spend so much on property. Would it not give him more joy to use that money to build small, secure homes for hundreds of those living in slums in the developing world? (Money spent there can buy many times more what it can here - the cost of one property here could genuinely transform scores of lives). It makes me wonder to what extent his heart's greatest longing is to see the poor helped - or whether his primary concern is his political career.
I understand that you’re trying to make a point but it is so fucking stupid I can’t quite connect to dots. According to you or someone who has a little bit of money is not or can’t care about those who don’t? Are you human? 
It's not "having a little bit of money" that I'm debating, it's choosing to spend on buying yourself a third home.
  
What matters is people suffering because of poverty, violence and exploitation, whether it's because of their gender or not. Why is so much of the time and energy of do called progressives, such as Trudeau, focussed on us females having exactly equal representation whilst there are still people in this world without clean water? And I'm aware that space science provides some useful information here on Earth - but why is so, so, so much spent on pride projects, like putting someone on Mars, when those $amounts could end the agony of scores of people suffering from injustice and natural disasters we've caused?

"Missguided are a fucking disgrace"
As I said when I saw this advertised on TV yesterday, I'm really, desperately hoping that between us and gen Z, we might be able to change this. The evil of fast fashion powered by grossly exploited workers is something we've grown up more aware of than current company bosses (not that I'm excusing them) and with generational turnover more and more consumers are of a more globally minded demographic. I've been so excited to see my little sister (20) get into buying all her clothes from charity shops, and the little girls I look after (6 and 9) ask often about poverty and declare their plans to help..

They're not happy.
I'm not happy that centuries of global corruption, greed and injustice has culminated in some people having "luxury lounges", whilst equally precious human beings live in slums or sleep on the streets in countries where they have no access to a welfare state nor opportunities, and would be ecstatic just to have a secure single-roomed home with a sofa.
There are plenty of adverts that mislead people into thinking that they need to buy certain things to enjoy life, and make them forget to enjoy what they have. There are adverts that encourage us to replace items with newer versions far sooner than we need to, contributing to the depletion of natural resources and to pollution. There are adverts that con desperate people into wasting the little money they have on gambling and lottery tickets. There are adverts that force people to hate their bodies and feel unavoidably anxious.
Those adverts are harmful, I don't think that stereotypes are harming us anymore.

Yuh, but those African countries that aren't peaceful are conflicted primarily because of the gross colonisation that the West inflicted, which multinational corporations continue to perpetuate.
We need to rationally discuss issues over which there's disagreement. Putting others into boxes and throwing stones at them on the basis of those labels isn't helping anyone.

I find it interesting to compare what the NHS website says about a pregnancy that's wanted and one that isn't. If you read their advice page on abortion, they describe it as pregnancy tissue, whilst on their pages about pregnancy, aimed at people who want theirs, describes the same foetus (rightly) as a baby.
  
There's a distinction to be made between actual homophobic abuse of people themselves, which must, obviously, be eliminated; and simply not endorsing sex that God has prohibited, which is a stance motivated by trusting that God knows what's best for humanity, rather than by hatred.
But how do you define "religious"? Plenty of people call themselves religious/Christian, but to genuinely be committed to God and following Christ means disregarding nationist pride.
"Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27
first. Nobody endorses it. We are asking for understanding and acceptance. And to not be punished for whom we are emotionally and physically intimate with.
Second, in Loving v. Virginia 1967, SCOTUS ruled that marriage cannot be infringed by the state. In Oberfell v. Hodges 2015, the same agreement was reached in regards to same sex marriage. It's taken so much blood, tears, and sweat to get this far.
And it's not right for other countries to criminalize something that cannot be changed because it's an intrinsic part of who someone is.
When did I say that "punishing" you is ok? Jesus compels us to be compassionate to everyone, even if not celebrating their actions. Even though He's forbidden certain sexual behaviours, you are nevertheless immeasurably valuable to God, and we as Christians should keep that in mind always.
which god prohibited sex? If you're Christian, where does Jesus say anything about homosexuality? And since homosexuality shows up in multiple species, it's obviously natural and therefore must be part of the plan. So how can it be prohibited?
It's a complex topic - and it's truly unimportant by comparison to the Gospel. Christianity is almost only discussed in wider society when the issue is homosexuality, but EVERYONE, no less us Christians, needs Jesus - we've ALL done wrong, separating ourselves from God, and through Christ's sacrifice, any of us can be reunited with God if we genuinely choose to accept Jesus.
Only a tiny minority of the things that Jesus said in His years of preaching are written down, so, contrary to the oft repeated claim that we should presume Jesus endorsed homosexual sex because the New Testament doesn't mention Him forbidding it, we can only conclude that it wasn't deemed important enough for the Gospel writers to include in their concise accounts. At the time, the Jewish audience wouldn't have been considering that homosexuality might be Ok.
Jesus affirmed Yahweh, and God's design of one man and one woman. Paul, following Jesus's direction, wrote that homosexual sex stands in the way between people and God.
Crucially, when religious leaders brought Jesus a woman caught having sex that God's old Testament law had forbidden, Jesus saved her from being punished, and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't endorse the sex, He told her to stop it, but He also showed her compassion rather than allowing her to be hurt.
 
in other words, you can't answer my questions. You're assuming Jesus condemned homosexuality because he told a woman to stop having sex outside of marriage? If he talked about it, but the gospel writers didn't consider it important, why do you? By the way, we didn't say he endorsed homosexuality only pointed out that he didn't condemn it. You are pushing your own prejudices into the words you read. Now that's going to get between you and your god. 
I did answer your question. And as I said, Jesus's endorsement of Yaweh's design, as well as his message through Paul, can't be overlooked. This is one better explanation - https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/jesus-and-homosexuality
Importantly, there are gay Christians such as those at Living Out who've attained plenty of qualifications in theology and concluded that God wants them to remain celibate, but are enjoying life because friendships and a relationship with God are more important than sex. I'm straight, but also celibate, andfeel frustrated that our society perpetuates the lie that sex is necessary to enjoy life.
No, you ignored the part about it being natural. And here's an interesting article that showed up on my feed today. Homosexuality was not in the bible until 1946.
That the term homosexual is relatively new isn't the point - the Bible refers to sex between people of the same gender. I never said that the orientation is to be debated.
Again, the Gospel matters more than all of this - why is that never discussed?

Why are there still so many unanswered questions? #Grenfell                                                                Why the frack is there a laughter reaction to this?                                                                                    Because sometimes accidents happen. It's impossible to foresee all eventualities. Almost 95% of the residents paid no rent at all and were totally supported by the taxpayer so were you expecting every flat to have it's own fire warden ?                                                                                                             How do you know that "Almost 95% of the residents paid no rent"? And do you know how difficult it is to get work here in London ATM? Note also that many were elderly or disabled. Regardless, to laugh about them being burned to death is evil.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
Vermont governor signs bill protecting abortion rights - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
I'm proud of my home state of Vermont for reaffirming the right to abortion
So odd - being "proud" of supporting abortion, whilst highlighting what it is that you're killing.
imagine for a moment that I need a kidney transplant. It happens that your kidney is a perfect match. I ask you to donate it to me. You say no. I tell you I will die without it. You still say no. I die. Did you kill me?
Your need for a kidney wouldn't be the result of me choosing to have sex. And preganancy lasts 9 months, giving up a kidney means that it's permanently gone. But I wouldn't say no - I tried to offer my kidney, for anyone who might need it, several years ago, but was told at the time that I wasn't healthy enough.
All people have Body Autonomy. It is a basic human right. It means that No One can use another's body without that person's consent, even if saying, no means that person dies. Body Autonomy is why rape and slavery are illegal! So a fetus is not entitled to use a woman's body, and that woman can have that fetus removed, if she does not consent. Oh, and Body autonomy extends into death, which is why you can't take organs from dead people unless they consented when they were alive. So by denying a woman abortion, you are in fact stating that she is a) Not human and therefore does not have human rights and b) that corpses have more rights and respect than a living woman
Bodily autonomy? The human in the womb's bodily autonomy means that no one else had the right to tear it up. Unless the pregnancy is the result if rape, which is the case in only1% of abortions and I won't argue about those, there's already been bodily autonomy to not have sex (and to have tubes tied, use contraception and PlanB). 
it literally says in the bible a baby isn’t a baby until it’s first breath. it’s not murder, it’s freedom of your own body. 
I never mentioned the Bible, but no, it doesn't say that. Care to share what verse you're referring to? 
I see you’re religious. Well, god says life begins at first breath (Gen 2:7), so either you’re wrong or your lord is, and we know what he does to people who defy him!
Genesis 2:7 is an allegorical description of initial creation, by no means doesn't it say that a feotus isn't alive until it's born - and it's blatantly obviously biologically that it's alive in the womb (there are also numerous other Bible verses indicating that the unborn is precious and human, but I wouldn't use Bible verses to try to convince people).
you have no concept of body autonomy. That literally means that someone else cannot use your body without consent. No matter what. The person using your body, in this case the embryo, then fetus, cannot shack up in a womb without your consent. It does not matter the fetuses body autonomy because they are the one using the other person, a pregnant woman is not using the fetus to sustain her life.
Again, the foetus is only "using" another person's body (in part, for 9 months) because the mother already made a choice. It didn't "shack up", it's there because of the parents' decision. And the fact that no one is depending on the foetus doesn't mean that its bodily autonomy is overruled.
a fetus had no brainwaves. It is alive but not living. Why would a fetus have bodily autonomy over a fully formed woman? I'm honestly curious what your view is on this.
Why do you think that a foetus doesn't have brainwaves? There are debates within the scientific community about it - but brain activity definitely begins well within the 2nd trimester. By 16 weeks, the foetus changes its facial expressions as music is played by the mother's belly.
Pay special attention to verse 21. Quote "when he makes your womb miscarry...". "He" as in the lord. As in El, Aba, Alah, Yehweh, Elohim, the father, the lord on high, the one above all.... YOUR GOD, just gave you an instruction manual on how to perform abortions. Is this or is this NOT the divinely inspired, immutable, infallible word of God?!
A priest saying some words whilst holding some dusty water is a symbolic ritual; it's not sticking implements into the uterus to dismember a foetus. It's also a command specific to the Hebrew people at a particular time; Christianity is primarily to follow Christ. 
Read the whole thing. It says God will cause the womb to miscarry! Nevermind. You haven't read 90% of the bible so I don't expect you to care.
Obviously, I've read the whole Bible multiple times, what evidence do you have otherwise? God saying that He might cause a miscarraige is, again, not the same as people being permitted to tear up a foetus. And God is suggesting that He might make a decision - He knows better than we can what' best - it's nothing like a woman and a corporation that profits from abortion making the decision.
grow the fuck up and get an education 
LOL, how exactly have I demonstrated lacking an education? Folowing health issues, I've not finnished my degree yet, which I'm furious with myself for - but I have looked at embryology at uni. What edication do you have that I've missed?
Oh and Grace, you can go ahead and shove your little book of hate and oppression where the sun doesn't shine, because "God" is irrelevant in this situation and you trying to force you religion onto people is just as bad as trying to downgrade women to subhuman!
It wasn't me who brought God into this discussion. Do you think that telling me to "shove your little book of hate and oppression where the sun doesn't shine" will somehow hurt my feelings or nudge me towards changing my opinion?
Your phrase "little book of hate and oppression" demonstrates that you've fundamentally misunderstood genuine Christianity - perhaps because of the many unChristian actions of people claiming (since they lke the label) to be Christian. It's because of Jesus' teaching that our society has standards of human rights and compassion that were lacking from pre-Christian cultures.
I'm not "trying to force religion on people", I'm just commenting, on the basis of my concern about destruction of humans, not "religion" - abortion forces peoples' opinion into an unborn human by actual killing them, whilst me typing doesn't change anything.
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James 1:27
"Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” " Matthew 22:37-40
Wow. You choose to ignore the bible or simply twist it to suit your own set of beliefs. The bible says god does abortion. And so you move the goal posts: "Tearing up a foetus" is not what happens. Plus 80% of terminations are pre 11 weeks and the vast majority do not involve an invasive procedure. You need to do some research instead of screeching biblical and "pro life" nonsense." it's nothing like a woman ... making the decision." No it's absolutely not. The difference between your invisible man in the sky making an imaginary decision and a pregnant woman making a real decision about her body and her existence is really a very very big one.
A miscarriage is not the same as an abortion. We could go round in circles with this, I have other things to do. I'm aware, and glad, that the majority of abortions happen early - but given that the foetus winces when prodded by 7 weeks, we can be certain that there are plenty of brutal procedures being carried out. And why do you think that no abortions involve tearing up the foetus? Seriously, what's your source?
More importantly, "invisible man in the sky" is a serious misunderstanding of what I believe. Have you looked at the scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of a creator for yourself?
There are no valid scientific arguments for the existence of a creator. There are a lot of philosophical arguments for "Belief" in a creator, sure. But then there are philosophical arguments for belief in a many things which are not real..There are many mythical creator stories and you seem to not believe in all the rest of them. Nor do I.
That doesn't answer my question (about what I've missed). You're essentially just saying that I'm wrong because you're right, you've not explained or proven anything. Also, I was curious as to how much you or others had studied biology, since I've told that I'm uneducated (not that I care about insults).
How you've concluded that the biological process that we're here because of, and which can be avoided by not having sex (or using contraception and plan B) is torture is beyond me, but clearly this argument is futile.
Ultimately, all of this unimportant by comparison to the question of God, ans your earlier comment demonstrates that you're unaware of that field of debate, so I think that we should stop wasting time here. There are plenty of scholars (with PhDs in sciences and philosophy) who explain why they've concluded that God exists in books and easily accessible online articles and lectures. If you wanted to weigh them up for yourself, you could, but you've just chosen to ignore them. I can't force you.
Have a good week, seriously.
I've got a ton of evidence of 'creation' via physics and chemistry and biology. What have you got?
Good grief, you think belief in God opposes belief in physics, chemistry and biology? Why? Seriously, I urge you to try the work of some scientists who are Christian, like this, https://youtu.be/-Gsa58Rm8Sk At very least, please try this article from TIME http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Just a few important points - I'm not advocating literal young Earth creationism, few Christians do. Early Genesis is endlessly debated amongst Christians, but theologians and scientists general conclude that differences in language and writing style account for differences between a literal interpretation and geology. In fact, current genetics dies refer to a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosome Adam, but either way, you've not disproven the concept of sin, which we trust on the basis of revelation from God through prophets and Christ given crediblity by miracles.
If you looked at the lecture to which I hyperlinked, and others by scientists who are Christians, you'd start to see that this isn't about a god of the gaps, but that the impossible specificity and interdependence of the universe and biological world demonstrate a creator. I can't make you agree, but you should be aware that there's a serious argument to be made for a God, not that everyone who believes in Him is necessarily rejecting science.
Considering the Bible advocates for men to force abortions on their wives of they suspect their wife became pregnant by another man...maybe try not to use the Bible as a moral compass. That & your religion represents your beliefs, it does not represent mine or millions of other ppl who follow different religions or no religion @ all. If your argument is based on your interpretation of your beliefs, then you have no real argument to begin w/. 
No, the Bible doesn't advocate that, you seem to be selectively interpreting the Mosaic law. Our moral standard is Jesus, who compelled us to love others. His teachings are the foundation of the positive moral values that our society has.
  
How exactly have you determined this, Vice? I don't suppose that you spend much time in Churches.
Have you statistically analysed research from large numbers of Church attendees? I am BY NO MEANS excusing any abuse or suppression of it being addressed, but I suspect that you don't actually have enough information to know that it's "almost impossible" to speak about abuse, and that you're just using an opportunity to the bashes the Church. I know, for example, that a particular evangelical Church that has been said, by a main newspaper, to be covering up an incident of abuse, did in fact inform the congregation about it last year (I was listening then).
I think that you're taking advantage of grotesque abuse for the sake of an article.
                                  NB - Evangelical, by definition, means to want to tell people about how Jesus died and rose for humanity - not everyone who calls themselves evangelical actually fits that description, and anyone who genuinely loves Jesus will hate some of Trump's words and policies.                                                                                                                                                                                               
It's bizarre seeing people describe this as "sweet". She could save starving children in Yemen and DRC, but instead pays for tiny unborn humans to be torn up.
[Dozens of criticisms]
Wow, obviously I don't have time to respond to all of these comments, so please don't think I don't have responses, I just have better things to do than respond to lots of people who are mostly telling me I'm an idiot without actually giving any explanation.
But a few things need saying - the "Trump post" that one of you referred to was me resharing a joke about his hair. I'm by no means a Trump fan. Here in the UK, I vote Left, and I'm FURIOUS about our government enabling war in Yemen.
Why ---- thinks I'm a troll is beyond me. You honestly think that because the UK is "not religious" that there's no one here who believes in God and posts about it? You know that's nonsensical. In any nation, in case you weren't aware, individuals have different views. I concluded that God exists whilst studying molecular biology, and separately, study of the accounts of the resurrection led me to conclude that it happened. That's more important than anything. I'm sorry that I fail to be a emulate Jesus enough - but consider also that you can't know about me by making presumptions on the basis of other people who are prolife. Again, each individual is different - the anger that some of you have because of certain politicians and others who call themselves prolife but don't have compassion for others is a non sequittor in this thread. It's a logical fallacy to argue against me on the basis of other peoples' words and actions.
I'm firmly in support of good government healthcare provision, substantial paid maternity leave, and pacifism. I'm aware that Planned Parenthood provides some positive services - but the figure stated that only 6% of Planned Parenthood services are abortion is a deliberate skewing of figures and has been debunked. Contraception, sex education and cancer tests should be provided - well - by the state.
                                                                                                                                                         Thats what's so weird about you saying you support Left. But your beliefs are that of a force birther all the way.
You're a woman. Don't you believe that we should have rights over our bodies???
If you don't like Abortion. Don't have one. But don't judge, condemn or or make laws difficult for other women to have them.
Otherwise, it's back to the days when it's back street abortions and women would die.
Do you think it's acceptable that a bunch of white men in Alabama can make laws that can jail a woman for needing an abortion. And those nutters claim a miscarriage can be an abortion.
Im here in the UK and disgusted that women in N. Ireland have to jump through hoops to get one, or hop on a ferry. Its 2019.
Can you not have children? Is that why you're so pro birth??
Its not about aborting babies. It's about taking away a woman's right to choose. And that is the crux of it. You want to save a baby? Adopt or Foster one.
Plenty out there.
         
                                                                                                                              As I said, don't lump me together with others. Other than in cases of rape, which account for only 1% of abortions, no one's "forcing" birth, and we do have control over our own bodies. The issue in abortion is destroying the body, and taking the life, if another human. I've said and will say again, I believe that there should be state provision of contraceptives, there are also the options of the morning after pill (Plan B) and tubal ligation - but more importantly, it's just not necessary to have sex to enjoy life. Indeed, I'm unable to have kids having evidently (I don't have periods) rendered myself infertile through starving myself as a teenager - but that's irrelevant, I'm frustrated because of tiny humans being dismembered.
Telling me to adopt is a moot point, since a woman's pregnancy results from her choice to have sex, whereas the fact that there are children in need of adoption is not a result of my actions, nor am I attempting to destroy them as is the case in abortion. But of course I'm heartbroken over children in need - I can't adopt ATM, since I still have anorexia to the extent that I can barely support myself, I wouldn't be allowed (by social services) to adopt. I hope that I can in the future. In the meantime, I can sponsor children in developing countries.

[Deleted Comments]                                                                                                                                 How, exactly, do you know that I'm "not so bright"? Simply because I disagree with you? Seriously, there was quite a bit of embryology in my Biomedical Sciences course at uni, please tell me what you think you know that I don't.                                                                                                                      LOL, you honestly think that a sperm is equivocal to a zygote? With all due respect, I recommend trying some high school level biology (seriously, I'm not wanting to be insulting ) - a sperm is haploid, it has only half of the chromosomes required for a human. A zygote has the genetic information to develop into a fully formed human, and is genetically programmed to do so.                 Only 1% of abortions follow rape, according to Planned Parenthood's own data. I won't argue about those cases. But are you honestly saying that a baby doesn't deserve to live simply because it's not privileged enough to be born into a perfect family?                                                                                  [Deleted Comments]
Seriously, what biology textbook told you that? "Nothing more than parasitic tissue"? With all due respect, you've been seriously misled. The fact that it temporarily relies on the mother's blood supply doesn't mean, at all, that it is "nothing more than parasitic tissue" - it is, by definition, human. I'm not arguing about zygotes - but a foetus begins to have brain function before the 2nd trimester, and I don't see why someone else has the right to suction or chop it to pieces.  People who need blood and other donations aren't in that situation because someone else chose to have sex, so they're not at all comparable. Of course, people in need of donations ARE provided with them, rightly so.                 
                                                            
Why are people shipping them? Seriously, I really want to understand.
I stronglly suspect that people are so interested to see gay relationships - since they're rarer - that they don't care about Whitney being heartbroken. It was the same with Christian and Syed - people seemed so excited and not to think that it mattered that Syed's fiance would be devestated. The same thing happened several months ago in Neighbours - loads of people were shipping 2 girls to get together, irrespective of the fact that one was engaged (to the other girl's brother). Obviously homophobia needs to be addressed, but it seems sad when people are so excited at watching relationships that will leave fiances hurting.

Whilst this case is abhorrent, we can't just turn up our noses and ignore the world's most severe suffering. Oxfam needs to change - but it's nevertheless beneficial to humanities most disadvanted people if we buy things from Oxfam shops (and their website) rather than from typical retailers. And there are many other charities that we can donate to which are working in the very most impoverished places.
That we can feed a starving child for a month for £4 is thrilling, and development has made a serious dent in poverty in recent decades because it can be amazingly cost effective - there's still horrific need that we have the privilege of helping.
We have children in poverty in this country, we should feed them first and help our homeless. I could not care less what the % of our GDP it is.
Why?
In fact, children are fed in this country. Few parents are genuinely unable to buy food, and there are free school meals, benefits, and food banks. The system needs to be improved, but those children who have the least do so because of issues with the DWP, not because we should give less to those whose poverty is even more severe.


Anti-Racism Media's photo.Nuh. Actual Christianity, by definition, is to follow Jesus. That can't be forced - and to keep slaves demonstrates that a person is not attempting to emulate Jesus.
here's the thing: Nobody was christian outside of Europe. If this doesn't prove no god exists, then you will find out eventually.
Christianity began outside of Europe, and spread to parts of Africa and Asia before Europe became Christian. Regardless, why would whether/where/when people follow Christianity determine whether God exists? Before a scientific discovery is made, people won't believe in a given scientific reality, but that won't mean that it isn't true. 
Christianity, from its own texts, is PRO slavery.      
The Bible was written in a society where slavery was the unquestioned norm, and it compels slave masters to treat their slaves well, contrary to other cultures at the time, and to ultimately to free them. It specifically outlaws kidnapping - so taking slaves is banned; slaves already existed, more equivalent to employees today than the slave trade's victims.
https://www.zachariastrust.org/does-the-bible-condone...
God gave rules to the Hebrews designed to help them best manage society at the time given deeply held attitudes at the time. Their culture presumed that women were property - God's laws for them at that time were to challenge those attitudes, He couldn't force people to immediately view the world entirely diifferently.
Jesus shows us how God actually wants us to live and treat others.
                                                          Jesus would have owned slaves if it were within his station during his life because he was a devout Jew, which means his own religious guidance came from the Old Testament.                                          That Jesus was a "devout Jew" means that He was dedicated to Yaweh, not that He copied other people who were Jewish by heritage. Jesus taught that we must treat others as we would want to be treated, and that most important thing aside from loving God is to love others.                                      I'm glad that's your position, because it means you're more moral than the bible. The bible literally gives instructions on how you can beat your slaves, where you can get your slaves, and Jesus tells slaves to obey their earthly masters as they would the Lord.  
No, people at the time that the Bible was written saw it as entirely normal to beat their slaves, and the Bible sets bold restrictions - by no means does it "give instructions on how you can beat your slaves". And the words about obedience to which you refer are Paul's, not Jesus's. Again JESUS COMPELLED US TO LOVE OTHERS AS OURSELVES. https://theweeflea.com/.../a-s-k-3-does-the-bible.../..
"Go die, bitch." - paraphrased Matthew 15:21-28
Jesus was prompting the woman to state what needed to be said. Other teachings of His, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, make it clear that He wants people of differing ethnic groups to be treated the same. 
                                                                                   
I think it will lead to dangerous rage amongst the far right - I think that societal injustice and disharmony probably require more nuanced solutions.
(NB, I'm by no means calling all who voted for Trump far right - people had a broad range of reasons for voting for Trump, and I'm confused as to why the Dems aren't doing more to address them so that they could stand a chance of actually being able to win power and enact the social justice policies that are so needed)

Migrants Flood Small Bosnian Town
They're human beings, not flooding. They're moving because the places that they've been born into - through no fault of their own - make it impossible for them to survive or life comfortably. At the very least, we need to have comassion.
It's absolutely their fault, Muslims are never in peace since the day of their existence. Millions of lives had been lost due to the Shia vs Sunni over who's more peaceful between them. The facts is they are not the most peaceful people on earth nor they are poor, Islamic countries are well known for their rich natural resources. Look at Europe, wherever Muslims spread their peace, crime rates keep going up triple.
I'm well aware that some aspects of Islam are dangerous - but someone being born in am Islamic country doesn't mean that anything is "their fault". Each individual is different, and the minority who behave as criminals aren't the fault of the innocent, suffering people who happen to have been born in the same area. Many people who are Muslim by birth in fact contribute more positively to humanity than us average Europeans. Correlation is not causation : the increase in crime in Europe is the result of various factors, and the increase in Muslims doesn't mean that Muslims are to blame - both trends are factors of the modern world. A particular cause of increased crime, amonst others, is that fewer people are trying to emulate Jesus than previously.

According to the NHS's own website, "Just 12 weeks after your last period, the foetus is fully formed. All the organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, and the sex organs are well developed."
Why do people (who criticise Hunt here) seem to think it's wrong to want to stop the tearing up of tiny humans?
because at 12 weeks gestation and even up to 22-24 weeks they cannot live outside of their mothers womb. In all real sense, until they can, they could be considered a parasite! After all, they take nutrients from the mother, cause sickness and other medical problems. If it were an intestinal worm, you'd want rid, humans aren't all that you know. Just look around you! And before I get the "I hope you never breed" comment, I've had 4 children and the last one nearly killed me. 

"A parasite"? By what definition is someone a human in your ideology?
Of course I'm concerned for the mother, and there should be far more support for them. However, the mother has, in 99% of cases already made a decision; and stands to go through a normal biological process, whilst the unborn human stands to be torn up.
Why on Earth do you think I'd say that I hope you never breed? I'm so sorry that your pregnancy was tough.
it's none of your business.  
You might well argue that a parent hasn't the right to kill their newborn - it would be none of your business, but it would be right to argue because the newborn is a human who no one else has the right to kill. A foetus is simply a few months younger - saying that "it's no one lse's busniess" doesn't make killing that tiny human OK.
there are abnormalities that aren't picked up until the 20 week scan. One that can kill mother and foetus in utero or shortly after birth. Not all abortion is used as birth control. 
No one is opposing abortion that's genuinely necessary to save the mother's life.  Which abnormalities are you referring to? Many don't justify abortion.
even in the Bible, life begins at the first breath and a foetus is not considered to be a separate person. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one, but don't force your opinions on other women.
LOL, which Bible have you been reading? Seriously, it doesn't say that, and several verses refer to the preciousness of the unborn
https://www.huffpost.com/.../abortion-what-the-bible-says...In any event, why should your opinion be forced on another woman? Noone is asking you to have an abortion you don't want. 
I'm just commenting, we all comment, it "forces" nothing. An abortion forces someone else's opinion on the unborn human by actually destroying them. And why not actually highlight the Bible verses you're referring to? Why should I read a Huffpost article (Huffpost is seriously biased, I'd rather not give it ad revenue unnecessarily).
None of those verses indicate that life "doesn't begin until breath". The verse about being called in the womb is not be necessarily only about the nation by any means. And obviously, there are other verses about being in the womb, such as Psalm 139. In the NT, we're told that John the Baptist lept for joy in His mother's womb - which is of course, not strictly literal, but clearly makes the case that the preborn are considered to be alive and important. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who isn't a Christian to care what the Bible says, and I didn't bring it up.
What bothers me is that some abortions happen at a stage where the foetus is sufficiently developed to have brain activity - and that's long before 24 weeks. Last year, a prize was won for a scientific study of how 16 week foetuses change their expressions in response to music played just outside the womb. Ultimately, contraception is freely available, there's also the morning after pill, and there are parents desperate for newborns. This isn't even about banning abortion, only banning it after 3 months. There are plenty of options available - and as I've found, contrary to the lie we've been sold since the 60s, it's perfectly possible to enjoy life without sex :)

you god-squadders make me sick. You have no regard for a child born with multiple disabilities, living with absolutely no quality of life at all. I have worked with such children, have you? Have you given birth to one?
Yikes, "God squadders"? I didn't even bring up God. Without thinking about God, I'm concerned about human beings being torn limb from limb, is it only us Christians who care about that? Why do you think we don't care about children who are disabled? I didn't say that whether or not abortions should be allowed for the very most severe cases, I asked which "abnormalities" are being referred to - because I wouldn't argue in those instances where it could be certain that the child would suffer more than they'd enjoy life, but in many instances that isn't the case. There are plenty of examples of women who've been advised to abort because of "abnormalaties" but have refused, and their child has been born healthy. There are also endless examples of abnormalaties being a reason that doctors advise abortion, but in fact the child, though not entirely "typical" grows up to be a blessing to those they meet, such as many cases of Down's syndrome. There are "abnormalities" that, increasingly, can be treated, such as spina bifida which has begun to be operated on in the womb. There are also plenty of cases of women refusing to abort a baby with severe abnormalities, and being glad to have spent a few hours with the baby after birth - though it's heartbreaking for a baby to have an abnormality that means that they won't survive, the parents still find that, in such a situation, it brings them more peace to bring that baby to term than to abort it.
Crucially, "God squadders" have been driving care for those with disabilities throughout Christianity's history, because of the belief that every person is valuable to God, whilst various atheist figures and political groups advocate for killing the disabled. (Nb, I'm well aware that most atheists would not advocate that).
No, I've not given birth to anyone, I've not had sex. Our culture has conned us into thinking that we all need regular sex as soon as we reach the age of consent - it's a lie perpetuated because sex sells.

it's also possible to enjoy life without alchohol drugs good food and especially religious nut jobs. But who wants too? Give me my sex I love it! Think this is a case of religion telling others how to live. Thankyou for your perfect life but we now have a life worth living not some narrow minded medieval hell! Your type had 1500 years to make a difference and all you brought was hypocrisy pain and suffering.
Your type? Countless people have called themselves Christians because they like the label ans feel it makes them appear noble
- but not actually been trying to follow Christ, which is, I'm fact, the definition of Christian.
Many who actually have been following Jesus commands have done awesome things - though Christianity became such an assumption in our society that we often to recognise how much of the good in human history was inspired by people wanting to emulate Christ. (Nb, that does NOT mean that I consider us superior).
This wasn't even a debate about Christianity, with all due respect, have you actually read what I've written? And it isn't about people trying to control women, it's just expressing the opinion that once a woman has chosen to have sex, and a tiny human has developed to stage of brain activity, she shouldn't kill it. You might well argue that a parent hasn't the right to kill their newborn - it would be none of your business, but it would be right to argue because the newborn is a human who no one else has the right to kill. Even if you deny that a human several weeks younger than that is a human, it's my knowing that it is that males me frustrated with abortion.
Ultimately, God, who loves everyone, is an incomparably more important topic than this, and I hate wasting time on these debates. We Christians have other things we want to tell the world.
The iPhone is not the problem. Kids will likely encounter anything that they might on the internet via other kids and/or when they're slightly older. They need to be taught what's right and wrong with reasoning and discussion, so they grow up resolved in their own minds to do the right thing. There are also, obviously, ways for parents to restrict access to porn - trying to cut kids from the internet altogether, now that it's so integral to preparing for work, will cause other issues, and will make them more tempted to seek out bad things when they eventually get the opportunity.
Jesus made it clear that everyone is loved and should be welcomed - He also told us that to love God is the paramount command, so we should support God's design rather than "celebrate" someone rejecting it.
Churches should certainly be loving toward trans people an no bullying is ever OK -but to actually offer celebratory services because someone believes that God made a mistake isn't actually loving.
There are a minority of intersex people - otherwise, male is to have XY chromosomes and female is to have XX chromosomes, by definition. If a person feels they're "in the wrong body", what they're uncomfortable with is the stereotype they feel is associated with their chromosomes. But they're a priceless, unique individual, and don't have to adhere to a stereotype they resent - becoming the opposing stereotype, and having their bodies changed is not something others should "celebrate". We should love them whatever, but hope that they can accept their bodies as God made them - and that they can focus instead on the array of traits and skills that make them who they are.

Mike Heffernan how are you defining "allows"?
God commands us again and again to treat others well.
We'd be robots lacking free will and thus meaning if He blocked every wrong human action - but if we're all merely molecules and no more, how and why do you care about abuse?
God offers eternal life free of suffering, which will make the pains of this lifetime seem momentary, and if our time on Earth were perfect, we'd all ignore Him and thus miss out on that far better, longer existence. "...our light and temporary affliction* is producing for us an eternal glory that far outweighs our troubles. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.…" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]

   
Obviously, it's inexcusable for him to disregard the suffering of the underprivileged in this country, and obviously, there are people in great need, and the DWP is failing some people horribly. However, we ourselves should note that this is relative poverty, distinct from absolute poverty. The 14m live in households with incomes below 50% of the national median - but the 40% of people in Africa in absolute poverty live on less than £1.50/day.
Our culture doesn't pay enough attention to the grotesque poverty in other parts of the world - many of which are ultimately poor because of the colonialism that's made us rich (as well as the following despotic regimes that colonialism enabled; the natural disasters resulting from our lifestyles; and the greed and corruption of our corporations).
I constantly see comments that we shouldn't donate to those in poverty overseas because of the need here - but those helped by charities overseas have no NHS (and do have many diseases that we don't have to face at all), and have little or no state services/welfare state; as well as little or no education access and even fewer job opportunities (if any) than there are here.
Our government should be doing far, far, far more to help the disadvantaged here, the wealth gap they've facilitated is despicable - but we should also keep in mind that equally precious human beings are suffering even more severly beyond our little island; and you and I can, with thrilling cost/value (eg, we can feed a starving child for a month for £4), transform some of their lives.

As a Christian, I believe that God has forbidden gay sex - I also believe that He nevertheless loves EVERYONE (and we are ALL sinners); and that He commands us to have compassion and respect for everyone, as well as common sense.
as a human being i would guess if an all powerful entity with the power to create everything in the universe from nowt that my diary would be too busy to be arsed about the odd species copulation habits given he created billions of them. Seems unlikely given his workload, i mean if he wasn't arsed about Hitler going off on one or the ongoing millions starving throughout the world where he has been, let us face facts here, caught napping a bit on, i'm sure a bit of sex with another consenting adult is not something he'd be bothered about despite the pish somebody wrote down millenia later after learning how to write and produce papyrus and ink.
Yikes, why do you think that He doesn't care about Hitler's crimes or starvation? He offers eternal life free of suffering, which will make the pains of this lifetime seem momentary, and if our time on Earth were perfect, we'd all ignore Him and thus miss out on that far better, longer existence. "...our light and temporary affliction* is producing for us an eternal glory that far outweighs our troubles. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.…" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)
We'd be robots lacking free will and thus meaning if He blocked every wrong human action - but if we're all merely molecules and no more, how and why do you care about Hitler?
*[Paul, who wrote this, was referring to the imprisonment and torture he experienced - he was eventually executed]
But He doesn't obsess about gay sex in the way that our media suggests Christians believe He does - His concern is that people reject Him. Jesus suffered beyond anything that anyone could imagine to make The Way for anyone to be forgiven - because God loves everyone, whatever their sexuality.
Just as well that there isn't a god other than the one people have made up, then.
Wow, I've never come across anyone claiming that before! (excuse my sarcasm). I've been looking into and debating this much of the time for years. I'd still argue that, evolutionarily, fundamental aspects of Christianity can't be accounted for in a solely Darwinian worldview. Seriously though, what exactly has led you to that conclusion? Have you looked at the points made by Christian academics, from science and philosophy, for concluding that a creator - ie, God - exists, for yourself?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning
 
   
'Fight liberal tyranny': Catholic politician Ann Widdecombe hits back after her show is axed - Premier
But we need to be tactful. Simply making people angry, and making them think that Christians are bigoted, serves no purpose. Our aim is to encourage people to consider turning to Jesus, not to cathartically let out our frustrations with today's society. We can say what God has told us - that He forbids gay sex - but we must be careful how we say things; and must, at the same time emphasise that God also loves everyone and has commanded us to be loving and respectful (as Jesus demonstrated).
    

It's geat that people care about this - but I find it disturbing that there's been nothing like this concern about severe poverty. people are far more concerned seagulls eating plastic than human beings with nothing to eat.
  
Yuh, we're all human, obviously. And God repeatedly commanded us to love our neighbors. But Jesus taught is that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life, no one comes to The Father other than through Him. He then proved Himself by rising from death. If we actually love Muslims, we should pray and look for opportunities to talk to them about Jesus - in a manner that emulates Him.
You don't need to talk to them about Jesus . Jesus is one of their prophets. And they practice an Abrahamic religion based upon the 1st testament: Catholicism, Judaism, and Muslim are the Abrahamic religions. YOU need to know your own religion and not attempt to force your beliefs on others,,,,that is what Jesus wants.
Which part of 'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ' do you dispute? Obviously, other verses back it up (eg, Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'); as do writings of the Church Fathers (who lived straight after the disciples - when witnesses were still discussing Jesus, and there'd been no oportunity for Imperialism or mythology to alter the message).
I never said we should "force beliefs on others", we should explain, asking God to guide our words, what we believe and why - especially since Muslims have been taught many falsehoods about Christianity.
Why do you think that "Jesus wants" us not to talk to others about the awesome offer He has made to them? Surely you're aware that He said 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."?
If you do a character study of Abraham, you would not find a very nice person.... Sarai is Abraham's neice;...in fear he gave her to a king to be in his harem.... after Isaac's birth he gives in to Sarai's anger and sends his other son out in the desert with his mother, to die...only they did not...and tried to kill Isaac saying God told him....not a vary stable old man
Who told you that John was written 100 years after Jesus' execution? Why overlook corresponding verses, such as Acts 4:12; Matthew 7:13-14; Galatians 2:21; 2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 2:5, etc?
What rationale is there for believing that there's hope of eternal life without Jesus? He defeated death - Muhammed didn't.
And why the defensiveness? It's very clear that EVERYONE, including those who are currently Muslims, are welcomed to turn to Christ. We, as current Christians are in no way superior, nor should any mistreatment of Muslims ever be condoned, so why are you so argumentative?
Scripture cannon came with the Popes 100s of years after Christ's death. Quoting empty scripture with no true knowledge of the historical facts doesn't provide support to your uneducated opinion.
According to what source? It's just not true that the NT was written 100s of years after Jesus, have you been unquestionly swallowing atheist bloggers' rhetoric?
No, my source is called THE VATICAN. You just don't get to lie about facts. You know lying is still a sin, right. "This question is technically one of canonicity. “Canon” means norm or standard. The term was first applied by St. Athanasius to a collection of Jewish and Christian writings around the year 350. A fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius was a powerhouse.
The decision of which texts were to be included is not at all the same as the writing of the texts themselves. They were written within decades of Christ's death. (Also, I don't follow the Vatican)
Regardless of whether you follow to the Vatican or not. They determined what was and was not was included in the bible....again you don't get to lie to fit your narrative. You can't rewrite Christian history because your personal preferences. No, biblical historian agrees with your outlandish claim.
What "outlandish claim"? And how would you know whether "no Biblical historian agrees"? Have you read the work of all of them? Why have you ignored my point that the decisions on which books to include is a different matter from the writing of the texts themselves?
What evidence is there of salvation - from death - apart from Jesus?
And why are you so argumentative? I've specifically stated that we must love Muslims, yet you're reacting as though I'm an Islamophobe.
Jesus is a Prophet in the Muslim faith. They are also descended from Abraham.
Why all the obsessing about whether or not Islam is Abrahamic? It is, but what reason does anyone have to think that that's crucial? (crucial really being the operative word here.....). Jesus defeated death, and offered everyone eternal life through belief in Him; Abraham doesn't determine eternal life. The New Testament, obviously, repeatedly emphasises that Jews and gentiles are equal.
Your job is not to determine who is or who is not "right", they could all be right or they could all be wrong. YOU have no way of knowing, and it is not for you to judge
What do you mean by "Your job is not to determine who is or who is not "right""? I didn't say that it was (my job to determine WHO is right) - but do we not all seek to find out WHAT is right? (+the Bible tells us to do so),
"they could all be right or they could all be wrong." no, it's not possible for all beliefs to be right. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross - it's not possible for that belief, and what the texts from the actual witnesses saying that He did die (and rise), to both be correct. Do you trust Muhammed, who lived 600 years after Jesus, or numerous writers who lived at the same time as Jesus?
"it is not for you to judge." when did I say I was "judging"?
Nice, but they really, really, really shouldn't have to. I was sponsoring a child in India - and the government kicked out the charity through which I was doing so. It's grotesque.
There are couples desperate for newborns. Many of us are desperate for tiny humans to no longer be torn to pieces.
If he cared about women, he would use his money to fund contraception and perhaps even to help women in extreme poverty - in fact he's simply investing money into his own business of profiting from womens' bodies.
There are 400,000 children in the care system. If people truly wanted to be parents, they wouldn't force another human being to go through a physically gruelling and emotionally taxing ordeal for a newborn baby. They'd take in the children already desperate for safe and loving homes
I'm well aware that there are, tragically, many children in the care system. It's not that I myself am "only interested in newborns", it's that couples wanting to adopt often want newborns. That doesn't mean they're "like people who dump puppies when they're no longer cute", but that they want to raise they're child from he beginning. I'm not saying that they should feel that way, of course I wish that more older children were adopted, but it's not malicious.
  
If you love people, why actively support misunderstandings they've been led into? Why would you not be desperately wanting them to know The Truth?
please enlighten us with the truth.
'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." '
Obviously, other verses back it up (eg, Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'); as do writings of the Church Fathers (who lived straight after the disciples - when witnesses were still discussing Jesus, and there'd been no oportunity for Imperialism or mythology to alter the message).
Crucially, we can trust this because, bizarre as it might seem, there's a compelling case to be made that Jesus truly did rise from the dead - but I don't expect you to simply believe me, I wasn't convinced until I read Who Moved The Stone (The Case For Christ is also good, and there are many, many other books and lectures in which historians describe the reasoning for concluding that the resurrection was a real event)
https://www.bethinking.org/resurrection

40% of people in Africa live in extreme poverty (below $1.90 per day, when different costs of living are accounted for). For goodness sake, pay generously for Africa's minerals, and develop strategies to end the scourge of conflict minerals.
  
Why? We're genuinely privileged to have regular ice cream, and to ever visit zoos or boats - most of humanity isn't so lucky. If we focus on how much we have to be grateful for - including things we take for granted - we can really, really enjoy them.
And, excitingly, we can make a HUGE difference to people who don't even have enough food, nor electricity - let alone ice cream - if we donate to the best charities (rather than spending that money on luxuries that we don't need).
  
Praying for someone doesn't mean agreeing with them. Often, certainly in this case, it means asking God to guide them, since Trump clearly needs guidance.
 
If we want to save the planet, we need to buy less stuff. ^These are a sad reflection of how Amazon's convinced us to buy far more than we need.
 
NB - not all of us who are pro life are pro gun and pro wall. I hate abortion - but I also think guns should be banned and that any money that could be spent on the wall should instead be spent on finding places where migrants can integrate best. As a Christian, I think it's ridiculous that people claim to be standing for Christians whilst supporting weapons and ignoring God's command to love our neighbours. Just needed to say that.
 
A Tory cabinet member would say things like that, we'll have to evaluate any Labour policy by its own merits, not on the basis of comments by the opposing party.
it’s just tax tax tax ! I have a large house for my family , I have a nice kept garden , for which I’m proud of ! Some say ! Well I’m jealous of that ! It has to be taxed ! By Comrade Corbyn ! I can’t say too much as I said he looks like a scarecrow , and now the scarecrows are up in arms ! Stating he is not one of them and never wi be !
Why should you have a "large house" and "nice kept garden" while other people - who work extremely hard - are stuck in tiny bedsits or end up on the streets?
Also, why should I have sympathy with you when you mock other people's appearance?
    
As a Brit, I'm baffled by the support for "gun control" - guns should be entirely banned for anyone who doesn't have livestock at genuine risk from predators. "Control" implies far too little change.
Yeah with how violent Britain is, you've got no right to point fingers.
How do you know "how violent Britain is"? Seriously, how can you know? Have you just been watching Fox and reading sites like Brietbart? If you look at data, the US gun problem is much worse than the UK's knife problem - but it's not about "pointing fingers", each of us is responsible for our own actions, we aren't superior to other human beings born into countries with bigger problems than ours.

It's colonialism by Europe that's left Africa with the poverty that leads people to risk their lives trying to migrate. Our ancestors stripped the continent of the equivalent of 10s, likely 100s of $trillions; and today, our multinational corporations continue the theft
 
The opposite of conservatism is liberalism; socialism is not necessarily entirely mutually exclusive from some conservative values.
 
OK. If only the news would talk about other things now.
No disrespect to football fans - but the extent of our media's obsession with it, whilst we rarely hear about serious issues elsewhere in the world that we have the power to help resolve, is frustrating.
 
They're just characters - but do you really think it's ethical to impose your belief onto someone else and deny their biology?

God hates sexual exploitation. And ultimately, Jesus teaches "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you."
  
I don’t like the word tolerance.
I don’t tolerate somebody. I respect somebody, I work with somebody, I love somebody.
I don’t like the idea I’ve got to tolerate them because they’re a different faith. No, respect is a much better way.
Ooh, but what is your faith, Jeremy?
(Obviously, they're great words, but saying that some people are of a different faith implies that you have some faith, and it'd be fascinating to know what that is)
Why does he even have to havr one?!
He doesn't "have to have one" - but his saying "I’ve... they’re a different faith" implies that he has a faith, and I was under the impression that he didn't. I'm always fascinated to know what people believe - because I find the big questions interesting, but also because "faith" can impact decisions.
Plenty of people, especially politicians, call themselves Christian because it's a familiar label that they like, or that they hope will score them a few votes; if people genuinely believed in Jesus enough that they desired to emulate His example and teaching, our country would be a fairer, more compassionate place.
God, Jesus and whatever isnt about compassion. Compassion is a trait amongst humans that should be taught regardless of faith. Bear in mind, people use faith as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT and minorities. You dont see that intolerance in most atheists, so how would faith make the world a compassionate place? Religion has been around for who knows how long, and there has always been a lack of compassion towards others who are different. The only time being different has been accepted is when atheism came into the picture..
Not about compassion? Many of our society's values stem from its Christian heritage. Jesus repeatedly commanded compassion for others - and throughout history across the globe, there's otherwise been barbarism because human nature can be selfish.
As I said, there's a crucial distinction between people calling themselves Christian - because they like how familiar it feels to them or because they hope that it might mean that some people think more highly of them - and actually following Christ.
PS - atheist regimes (since you mention atheism) have killed far, far, far more people than so-called "religious wars" (which were often, in fact, entirely opposed to what Jesus actually taught us about how to live).
what atheist regimes? And why do people in every faith use their faith as a means to discriminate and oppress others for being different, if its so compassionate?and im in no means saying religion isnt compassionate, i dont believe in religion but if people use it to actually be compassionate then more power to them. I dont understand why they need to be compassionate because a God says so rather than just to be a decent person but if theyre being compassionate then whatever. Im referring to a statement like "religion would make the world compassionate". That statement is false, religion is the reason ISIS do what they do, why Westboro hate LGBT, why Buddhists are killing Muslims in Myanmar, why Israelis are killing Palestinians, why Nazi's attacked Jews and their are countless more examples. Also, do you know anything about history at all? Religious wars are the cause of most wars throughout history. The idea that atheist regimes have killed far more than religion is absolutely ridiculous.
Stalin, Mao etc - were firmly atheist and killed many times more people than the crusades.
As I said, human beings are all selfish to some extent. So when you say that "religious" people mistreat others and try to justify it by "religion" it's simply because, as I said, it's a label that they like, or they hope some people will think of them as more noble. So "religion" is simply the best excuse they can think of for trying to justify themselves - but what they say and do doesn't actually define what genuine Christianity is.
I didn't say, as you've just said I did, that faith would make the world a better place. I said that if people were genuinely trying to follow Jesus, the world would be a better place. Plenty of people who call themselves Christians aren't actually following Him. Those of us who are trying still fail - but we become more compassionate than we ourselves were before we followed Jesus. It's not, as you suggest, because we want to score points with God - that's the ideology that other faiths teach, and that we can fall in to, but in fact Jesus taught that it's not what we do that determines whether we get to heaven. Nothing we could do is enough - but Jesus offers heaven to everyone, so salvation depends entirely on whether we truly, deep in our hearts, choose to accept Him. IF we do, we naturally WANT to love others as He taught. And we also believe, though obviously you don't, that by committing ourselves to Jesus, we're giving Him permission yo work with us in overcoming our inclinations to sin - so the good that we do is NEVER anything to be boastful about, because it's through God's help that we gradually become better people.
Why mention ISIS? I never said anything suggesting that we should follow Muhammed. And Westboro can call themselves whatever they want, they're wrong. Their attitude plainly shows that they're not following Jesus, therefore by definition, they aren't Christian. As Christians, we believe that God has told humanity not do certain things, and gay sex (nb, not orientation) is one of them - but He's also repeatedly told us that it's not OK to bully others - we MUST love the people themselves, even though we don't support some of their choices. Jesus response to the woman caught in adultery shows how He wants us to respond to sexual immorality (of course, adultery is not the same as homosexuality, but both are sex that God has advised against).
   
Indeed, everyone needs to be correctly regarded as equal, and discrimination needs to be stopped - but that everyone needs to watch sex scenes.
But should sex scenes be censored just because they are between two people of the same sex?
No, I'd feel the same about any sex scenes - some degree of action is OK, but often they go further than I think they should; more importantly, we shouldn't define people by sex, and Elton John should stop his exhibitionism.
   
Obviously, attacks like this are vile and unacceptable - but you're deflecting and deliberately misrepresenting Pro-life. I'm absolutely not excusing any abuse by pro-lifers, but ^this, in the absence of any discussion about the violence against thousands of times more humans by abortion itself, is unbalanced.
Govt forced pregnancy is violent. Imprisoning/executing women and doctors is violent. Condemning newborns to dangerous situations like abuse, infanticide resulting from lack of abortion access is violent. Pro-life obsession with cutting social programs is violent. Abortion isn't violent, its healthcare. If you genuinely felt sorry for an embryo, you would try to make the country more hospitable to having a family without going into financial ruin and miserable situations.
"Govt. forced pregnancy", Claudia Barrett? No, pregnancy is the biological result of sex which people choose to have (only 1% of abortions are due to rape, according to Planned Parenthood's own data). And newborns needn't be "condemned to abuse" because there are couples desperate to adopt newborns (also, just because a baby is conceived by accident doesn't mean that the parents will ignore their natural instincts of care and abuse it).
I'm desperate for poverty to be tackled (and obviously, there should be universal essential sex ed and contraception). You seem to be presuming that I'm opposed to things that I didn't comment on the basis of my opposing abortion, but that's a fallacy - I hate abortion because of the destruction of tiny humans, I'm not unconcerned about injustice. I'm in the UK, where I vote left and spend much of my time arguing against the causes of poverty, abortion isn't my top concern
Roe vs Wade gives every woman the right to privately make her own reproductive decisions, no matter the reason, and the majority of citizens do NOT want Roe vs Wade overturned..You can venture an opinion that 'abortion is murder' but it's just that, your opinion and it is irrelevant ,except to you.  
most people want abortion time allowances here in the UK reduced, so even if people don't want abortion banned entirely, you can't assume that the public are fine with everything that currently goes on. And that's not the point anyway - the life of a small human shouldn't be in the hands of public opinion. And I'm well aware that what I write here is just my opinion, we all just write our opinions online, so what's your point?
what about the violence against those who are already born? You might want to check those statistics. And what about the violence against entire generations of people by war. You might want to ask yourself the question as to why you believe an unborn embryo or fetus is more important than those already born. I think abortion is ugly and not something I would have done. However I do not feel I have the right to dictate to anyone else as to what they should or shouldn’t do when faced with this situation. Empathy is essential for understanding what it feels like to walk in someone else’s shoes.
What do you mean by dictate? We all comment online, we aren't actually determining what happens to another person. Though in this instance, I and others feel compelled to comment because another human, who cannot speak up, is the victim. I'm not arguing about tiny embryos only several weeks gestation - but there are thousands of tiny humans who already have brains who are dismembered, so prolifers "speak" (type) up in despair.
Yikes, of course I'm concerned about humans who are already born! Why presume that I'm pro war? I'm heartbroken about victims of war and severe poverty, why would opposition to abortion mean that I wasn't? I'm well aware that there may be a correlation, but each person has their own set of opinions, abortion isn't legitimised by the evils of some Republicans.

    
Africa officially becomes world’s largest free trade zone
Awesome progress has been made in recent decades - but still 40% of people live on less than $1.90/day, because of the past colonialism and current multinational corporate theft that we in the West benefit from. We should be doing more to support development - the agony that some innocent people endure because of greed that's made us rich is abominable beyond words.
  
Opinion | I Was an Anti-Abortion Crusader. Now I Support Roe v. Wade.
Every abortion is a tragedy. But telling poor pregnant women they have just one option — give birth and try raising a child, even though the odds are stacked against you — is not “pro-life.”
Nonsense, who's telling women that "they have just one option — give birth and try raising a child"? There are parents desperate for newborns who could adopt - and there should be ample support for pregnant women in this process, including pay for time off work etc, obviously.
There's also, contrary to the lie we've been sold by our culture for decades, the option to not have sex in the first place (of course, I'm not referring to rape, but this accounts for only 1% of abortion cases according to Planned Parenthood's own data). Obviously, there's no point saying that once a woman is pregnant, but it's something that should be discussed more, because the lie that we're indoctrinated with - that sex is necessary regularly as soon as one's old enough - is hurting people (particularly girls and women pressured into sex - which is not me suggesting that all are).
Those countries which educate their youth about the issues have far fewer unwanted pregnancies. Fact. Ignorance, poverty and the absence of free general health care and advice create the problem in the first place. Nowadays you'd think unplanned pregancies wouldn't coccur but they do, at all levels of society. The difference is that the wealthy end the pregnancies with experienced help. The rest look for a coat hanger. Fact.
What's your point? I'm desperate for poverty to be tackled, and obviously, there should be universal essential sex ed and contraception. You seem to be presuming that I'm opposed to things that I didn't comment on the basis of my opposing abortion, but that's a fallacy - I hate abortion because of the destruction of tiny humans, I'm not unconcerned about injustice or anti-contraception.
there are hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of children in every state waiting to be adopted.
I know, it's tragic - but it's because of families breaking down, and prospective adopters specifically wanting babies.
   
Opinion | Why the Fight Over Abortion Is Unrelenting
Because it's the destruction of a tiny human.
still? We have to explain this biology again?
Go on, explain to me how it isn't. I've done quite a bit of embryology in my Biomedical sciences degree. I'm well aware of the developmental stages, and wouldn't argue about zygotes, blastocysts, or embryos that don't yet have a brain - though technically, even then they're human. But by 8 weeks, the foetus flinches when prodded, and much of the pro-abortion movement advocates allowing abortions until stages in pregnancy at which premature babies can now survive.
There are tiny humans having their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off - despite the fact that, in all but 1% (according to Planned Parenthood's own data), the sex was a choice, and various contraception and Plan B are available (and I'm not opposing that - I think that the sexual revolution brought about by contraception's availability has hurt a lot of people, but on balance still support free contraception). We've all got different opinions - but it shouldn't need explaining that some people are opposed to abortion, and this^ article's tagline is almost hilariously daft, presuming that prolifers want to restrict rights because the writer ignores what prolifers believe about what abortion is.
so you support “fetal heartbeat” bills at a point in the pregnancy when there is no heart and no fetus. Republican Biology.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I've not researched the heartbeat bill enough to have a clear opinion on it - but the point stands that there's the option to not have sex; to use various forms of contraception and Plan B; or to bring immeasurable joy to an infertile couple desperate for a newborn.
For the record, I'm in the UK, where I vote left, I'm not a Republican. my primary political concern is that wealth should be more equally distributed.
potential human. 1:4 fertilized eggs never go on to even that status.
As I've just said, I'm not arguing about zygotes (fertilised eggs), I'm arguing about the feotuses that are torn into pieces. Which textbook told you that prior to birth there is only a "potential human" and not a human? It has it's own unique genome and genetic coding that will bring it through childhood to being fully grown. Our NHS's website (not that that's what I rely on for biology, obviously; I quote it since it's an authoritative source, without bias, and the NHS performs abortions) states that at 12 weeks, the "baby" has all of its organs and now just needs to grow bigger.
What's your biological criteria for the start of a human? Are premature babies not human to you because they've not had 40 weeks gestation? Or caesareans because they've not been through the vaginal canal?
 
viability. The woman counts too.
I never disputed that the woman counts. But this isn't an either or situation. There should, obviously, be far more support provided for mothers. I don't know enough about your health system's maternity care, but I get the impression that it's unfair - here everyone having a baby is going to get decent maternity care on the NHS, including support during and after pregnancy (as well as free contraceptives), I'm concerned that the poorest in the US may not be so fortunate (to clarify, I'm not boasting, we're just lucky). There should also be ample support for women to link with couples desperate to adopt newborns, and, obviously, laws to prevent a pregnant woman being disadvantaged by pregnancy. 
and that’s not going to happen with this administration. So maybe the best thing is to leave medical decisions to the woman and her doctor. It’s really no one else’s business.
I wasn't arguing in support of the administration, I was only arguing against abortion.
I argue (NB, we all argue online about everything, we're each entitled to simply have opinions), though it's "none of my business" because another human being is victimised. If you knew that someone was going to tear the limbs off a newborn in a hospital, you might argue about it, even though it's "none of your business"
tear the limbs off a newborn in a hospital? That's a bit of a dramatic reach.. 
Well, would you argue about it? in some abortions, that happens only to slightly younger victims. That's why prolifers argue, even though it's theoretically "not our business".
All those that claim a two week old embryo is a "person".... you support the dealth penalty for women and doctors who participate in an abortion right?
I didn't say that a 2 week embryo is a person, and I don't support the death penalty for anyone. And for the record, laws restricting abortion propose punishment only for those who perform the procedures, not the women themselves.
(Also, I feel I should say, since you seem to be making presumptions about me, that I'm fervently antigun)
   
Rape only accounts for 1% of abortions, according to Planned Parenthood's own data. And Alabama is still planning to allow life-of-the mother [exceptions]. I still believe that., if it weren't for Hillary's support for late term abortions, she'd have won, and so many Democrat policies are desperately needed.
Your point?
That it's misleading that it's endlessly brought up as an argument for allowing abortion, given that it accounts for such a tiny proportion of cases.
You can see all that clearly from your home in the UK? How many abortions are late term abortions, and how many of them are not to save the life of the mother? Good grief, go settle Brexit or something, perhaps you're better informed on that then life in Alabama for 2nd class citizens (women LOL, no one can sort out Brexit, and I am dying of boredom hearing about it. I'm constantly desperate for our politicians to spend more time helping people in developing countries, where's there's immense suffering because of our past colonialism and current multinationals, yet our parliment has spent the last 3 years bickering endlessly about Brexit and I just don't care about it..
sharia er christian law...   
You don't need to be a Christian to be concerned about tiny humans having their limbs ripped off. And how is wanting to prevent that comparable to Sharia, exactly?  
You're not even from nor living here. Gtfo
I follow US news outlets as well as British, because your culture has enormous oimpact on ours - and thus attitudes here are hugely influenced by America. Much of the film, music, TV and internet content consumed here, esp. by my genration, is from your side of the Atlantic, so I need to know what's going on with you guys if I want to understand my country's trajectory. And you're welcome to tell me to GTFO, but this the WWW, you have to put up with us foreigners and anyone non white)
   
That's roughly 0.1% of our nation's GDP (total wealth) BTW. It'll be good to fight the risk of natural disasters.
Are they our natural disasters??? 
What do you mean? Flooding here could become worse, but, crucially, millions of people in developing countries have lost everything because of cyclones, floods and droughts in recent years.
Who is the "our" that you refer to? Why should we care less about the agony and deaths of human beings simply because they're not as privileged as we are in being born in the UK? People who are in severe poverty, with no chance of the state services we have here and no insurance losing everything to natural disaster, then being without food or water as a result and bereft of loved ones, is more tragic than I have words for.
And in fact, they ARE partially our natural disasters, because it's emissions from countries like ours (not developing countries, where carbon footprints are absolutely tiny by comparison) that are increasing the risk of natural disasters. And the colonialism of our ancestors and multinational corporations which means that we've been born into relative wealth is the reason that people in developing countries can't protect themselves or recover from natural disasters.
 
 
Even if that's slightly true now - which is very disputable, and why the opinion of one economist has made so many headlines is beyond me - when we're in our 90s (which we will be, people are living longer) many of us (myself included) will find that it can suck to have no family.
  
Not that ^this isn't an outrageous tragedy, but please make clear that this refers to relative poverty - having a household income below 50% of the national average; which is very different to absolute poverty - “the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity.”, living on less than $1.90 a day (using PPP exchange rates).
Much more needs to be done to help those who are underprivileged here in the UK, so please don't think that I'm opposing that - but many, many people argue that Aid should be stopped since there's poverty here, and we need to clarify that there's even more severe need in developing countries (thus we should give more Aid).
 
Abortion in America, explained in 10 facts
In the Handmaid's Tale, women are raped, have wanted children taken from them; and are made to live as servants - to restrict abortion is nothing like the Handmaid's Tale, dressing up like this^makes no sense. All but the 1% of abortions due to rape, a choice was already made, to have sex.
Even when "safe" abortion is dangerous to womens' physical and mental wellbeing. What's needed is a combination of encouraging of abstinence (which is best for avoiding heartache, STIs, etc) alongside sex ed; free contraceptives (inc. vasectomies and tubal ligation) and far improved networks for pairing up unwanted unborn babies with parents desperate to adopt newborns.
consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. And abortion is 14 times safer than giving birth.
"Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy"? According to what authority? It's biology. Today, there are plenty of contraception options, and adoption.
Do the foetuses that have their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off give consent?
Its pretty simple, consent to one thing is not consent to the unwanted outcome. Consenting to drive a car is not consenting to getting hit by a drunk driver. Otherwise we should just let nature takes its course and let them bleed out on the pavement. They knew the risks when they got behind the wheel, right? Contraceptives are a seatbelt in this analogy. Sure, it prevents a lot of damage, but isn't fail proof.
No, because the reason that sex originally existed was for procreation; driving is necessary for many people to work; and being hit by a drunk driver is a very infrequent occurrence that's primarily the fault of someone else, and is also entirely possible as a pedestrian. I wouldn't argue, were it not the case that, in the situation of pregnancy, a tiny human is destroyed. If the stage of pregnancy is so early that they don't resemble a human, I wouldn't argue either - but that only lasts several weeks, whilst there are abortions happening on foetuses with all of their limbs and organs - including brains - I can't help but feel upset about it.
okay then be a baby making machine but leave me the f*** out of it. I'm not a Christian I'm never going to be a Christian and I'm never going to live by Christian values. Christian values states that women are for breeding purposes only they reduce females to be breeding Mares. 
Good grief, why do you think that Christianity sees women like that? The Bible's events take place in a very different culture from ours, so its partially reflective of a society were seen as property - yet many passages demonstrate remarkable egalitarianism for the time.
[Angry testimony about sexual abuse; Church involvement; and being rejected by family when abuse came to light]
Obviously, I'm more sorry than I have words for for what you've been through. But a vital point needs to be emphasised - many Catholic Churches (and some others, obviously) have leaders who aren't actually in love with, and thus seeking to follow, Christ. So they shouldn't be a reason for rejecting Him.....
Crucially, Jesus taught that “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Therefore when people are cruel, they're not following Him, because He's clearly instructed us to love others.
I genuinely can't fathom why you were told, or got the impression, that being sexually abused is a sin. I'm also bemused as to why you're angry with the pregnancy centre for encouraging you to speak up about the abuse, especially when you're angry with the Catholic Church for not encouraging you to speak up....
 ....So do you think that you should have been advised to keep the abuse quiet? Really?
The fault is with the abuser, and family for abandoning you. Encouraging victims to report abuse is the right thing - by consensus across our society - to do......
....I'm so, so sorry that you've felt depressed. You seem to think I'll be upset that you're having sex - why? I believe that sex should only happen within marraige, but I'm well aware that that's the case for almost no one, and that it's none of my business - and it doesn't upset me. That people reject God upsets me, the heartbreak and illness that some people suffer as a result of current sexual norms upsets me, and your depression, whatever its cause, upsets me.
I'm NOT comparing my experience to yours, but I was prescribed anti depressants as son as I was old enough to take them and have been on them ever since. I was sectioned (forced against my will under mental health law into a mental health facility for most of a year). It resulted in me spending huge amounts of time (since I was stuck indoors) looking at the reasoning supporting the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, concluding that (though I couldn't get my head around them) they were true, and then drew closer to God. That's enabled me to feel happier than I ever had done. But I know that will all sound daft to you.
I suspect that you're lumping me together with other prolifers who've offended you. My comments in isolation aren't enough for so much rage - though I don't mind, curse at me all you want. But I recommend addressing any erson's argument on the basis of what they themselves have written. 
    
Why would the FBI know? I'd guess that they made presumptions when observing mere interactions, for the sake of being able to ruin his credibility when they worried about their lack of control.
  
We don't need to know. If we think about people like these^, we can enjoy what we have less than we otherwise would. We should focus on the fact that, compared to most of humanity, most of us are very wealthy - we have comfort and luxuries that people living a century ago, and most people elsewhere in the world could only dream of. Excitingly, we can make an enormous difference to the lives of some of the world's poorest people; we can also simply be happy about the countless everyday blessings we forget to enjoy.
     
Defined how? Plenty of people have co-opted Christianity because they like the label - but genuine Christianity, by definition, means to follow Christ, because of overwhelming gratitude for His self-sacrificial death in our place.
What's fundamental, is that Jesus has made the offer of eternal life to anyone who will accept Him, though none of us are deserving. So whilst God may have "chosen" some for certain tasks, we have no reason to feel proud, and we are compelled to have empathy and compassion for everyone.
Vicarious Redemption is grotesquely immoral.
How are you defining "immoral"? And given that forgiveness and eternal life is offered to everyone, why are you complaining?
    
The fight for abortion rights is bigger than Alabama
Alabama’s new abortion law is among the harshest in the USA.
"Harsh"? To NOT endorse tiny humans being torn limb-from-limb? In all but the 1% of abortions due to rape, a choice was already made, to have sex.
Even when "safe" abortion is dangerous to womens' physical and mental wellbeing. What's needed is a combination of encouraging of abstinence (which is best for avoiding heartache, STIs, etc) alongside sex ed; free contraceptives (inc. vasectomies and tubal ligation) and far improved networks for pairing up unwanted unborn babies with parents desperate to adopt newborns.
       
Federal judge blocks Mississippi 'heartbeat bill' that effectively banned abortions after six weeks
Ew, which parent takes a child as young as her^ to a rally in support of tearing up tiny humans?
excuse, “tiny humans”? The word you are looking for is zygote, which is a clump of cells. Not even a fetus yet! Tiny humans... seriously?
How much embryology have you studied? There was quite a lot of embryology on my uni course - but even if there hadn't been, I'm fully aware of the zygote phase - it lasts 2 weeks, and I'm not arguing about termination at that stage. By 12 weeks, according to the NHS's own site, the foetus has all of its body parts, and simply needs to grow. Most Democrats, and plenty of abortion activists here, are advocating for abortion to be allowed far, far beyond this point, and here in the UK abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, at which stage babies born prematurely now often survive.
   
That's a logical fallacy - indeed some "pro-lifers" wrongly lack compassion for suffering migrants who are fleeing horrendous circumstances; but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is killing of a tiny human.
Also, as politicians should be able to acknowledge, everyone is different, so whilst some pro-lifers may have certain other views, not all pro-lifers share those views (on migration etc). Would she want us to lump all Muslims together?
   
Christianity means more to me than anything - but the reason that I hate abortion (NB, I hate abortion, not people who have abortions) is that it's the destruction of a tiny human.
Here’s an idea: hate abortions? Give everyone proper sex-ed and free access to birth control. Abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work, but teaching people how not to get pregnant and giving them the means to avoid doing so works wonders on the teen abortion rate.
How much embryology have you studied? Yes, it is by definition a tiny human. There was quite a lot of embryology on my uni course - but even if there hadn't been, I'm fully aware that there's initially a clump of cells - but only for a very short time, and I'm not arguing about termination at that stage. By 12 weeks, according to the NHS's own site, the foetus has all of its body parts, and simply needs to grow. Most Democrats, and plenty of abortion activists here, are advocating for abortion to be allowed far, far beyond this point, and here in the UK abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, at which stage babies born prematurely now often survive.
If it were necessary to attach another human to me to keep them alive, I'd absolutely oblige - but that's not comparable, because the woman has already chosen to have sex (only 1% of abortions are due to rape - and yes, obviously the man should be forced to pay ample child support).
what baby, it’s not born, not your body, none of your business, your forcing your views onto women, which you are not one. It’s a women’s choice only
"Forcing"? I'm just commenting. we all comment on things online. But why should it be the woman's choice, with no arguments from anyone, to tear limb from limb another human being?
You need a lot more than that. Does the tiny human suffer? Would it suffer more if not aborted? What about the suffering of the mother who doesn't want it?
Given that a foetus winces away from surgical instruments with which it's prodded by around week 7, do you really think that it doesn't suffer if it has its skull crushed and limbs pulled off?
    
Perhaps, but you don't get to decide what other peoples' motives are. How can you know that all of the tech billionaires who give are "bribing society" rather than expressing genuine desire to do good? Either way, what matters is that some people in need are helped.
 
They both make huge incomes by making girls feel that they're not pretty enough and that they need to buy expensive cosmetics. They should both stop.
 
Why is it thought to be fantastic to shun purity rings? No one should feel constrained by what their parents or minister have told them, that goes without saying. But God's guidance that we avoid sex before marriage is because He wants what's best for humanity, it's not sinister.
And given that the brain releases high levels of oxytocin during sex, as well as the risks of STIs, it genuinely is optimal for mental and physical health not to have sex before marriage - but our culture worships sex, and outlets like Buzzfeed clearly deem it blasphemous to suggest that we shouldn't all be sexually active ASAP.
   
I hoped that we'd leave the EU entirely because I suspected that it might be the best outcome for developing countries (then didn't vote because of the racism I saw amongst some Brexiteers) - but it's plainly untrue that, as this article states, Aid has done nothing to reduce poverty in Africa. There are plenty of stats that demonstrate that progress has been made, there's just a long way to go. Aid needs to be improved, but already most of it is being used well - we should be fixing its problems, not cutting it. Aid that provides essentials, such as clean water, tools and education, will enable further progress toward self sufficiency.
    
We Asked Couples Why They Opened Up Their Relationship
We know you did, you've reshared this countless times, Vice. It's still gross - and it's grim that you'd spread the message that people should be reduced to their body parts. Don't you have anything more helpful to write about?
Having a committed, private, unique bond with one person has worked well for much of humanity for much of human history - especially when people are older and an emotional bond increasingly becomes more important than sex. It seems sad that you don't get that.
Why do you care so much about other peoples relationships and sex lives?
I don't care about other people's sex lives, that's the point. I really wish that Vice could use it's platform to to more that contributes to better understanding of real world problems. But I am bothered by the impact that things like this have on long term relationships and wellbeing - articles about sex serve as profit making clickbait, but ultimately Vice could be influencing some readers to do things that, long term, could affect the wellbeing of them, their partners or their children.
   
Many of us would do the same if born into the poverty they are - poverty that's largely a result of the theft and corruption that's made our nation wealthy. The lack of compassion towards migrants is digusting.
     
I know this will seem concerning to people here - but seriously, £15m, in terms of government spending, is nothing. It's less than 0.0008% of our GDP. And those kids in Poland will be in greater need than most here.
You have got to be joking ! All the families here that have to use food banks ! I think that money could be well spent on OUR own children ….
Indeed, we have food banks - in poorer countries, they won't, and so the poor suffer even more. Our government should absolutely do more to help the underrivileged here - but this £15m is nothing.
have you ever been to Poland their much better off than UK citizens
There are a minority of wealthy people in every country, and as a tourist you'd likely have been in affluent areas. The majority of Polish people vare poorer than the vast majority of Brits - note, for example, that you're evidently wealthy enough to go travelling.
I would pick up a penny from the floor so 15 million is a lot bet you dropped a pound coin you would pick it up grace Dalton and seeing as it's our taxes you would want it spent better
 "Spent better"? It will be spent better than most of the money we spend. How many Britons spend money on beauty treatments; clothes that are only worn once; takeaways/restaurants/cafes; holidays abroad; bingo etc? The money given in child benefit will be helping underprivileged children in a country where there's no NHS and far fewer opportunities than here. And as I've said, the amount is less than 0.0008% of our GDP, and equivalent to only around 20p per person, so it's not worth worrying about. Keeping it here wouldn't mean that no one needs food banks - we need to help underprivileged people here, but by taxing billionaires more, not by taking away basic items from children in Poland. And no, I've not been there, since I don't spend money on holidays, but I know plenty of Polish people, who concur that Poland is poorer than the UK.
    
But politicians' wrongful disregard for immigrants doesn't justify abortion. We need to urge politicians to have compassion for immigrants - but that doesn't change the reality that abortion destroys tiny humans. I'm so glad I'm not an American voter.
   
Awesome - but Kanye needs to get that following God isn't about him (Kanye) being superior, as he seems to relentlessly tell us that he is. The Psalms were mostly written by King David, who learned that being humble before God is vital. God loves and reaches out to everyone, and one day our personal wealth and success will be meaningless, whilst only our decision about Christ will matter. Kanye's "Sunday service" suggests that he's more interested in appearing enlightened than seeking God - but that's just my impression, I could be wrong....
   
Totally breaking the ten commandments, obvs...
yeah, that’s my favorite one. Thou shalt not have Dolly Parton on a candle. She’s done more for humanity with her Imagination Library than all the prayers in the world combined.
The ten Commandments tell humanity not to create and worship false idols. Obviously, people still can, it just seems ironic.
How do you know that prayer hasn't achieved anything (or not as much as Dolly Parton)? How much have you investigated it? Even if you don't believe that it has, you can only speculate. And prayer certainly has helped countless people to feel relaxed and hopeful in the midst of desperation - it's been more helpful for mental health than we could ever measure.
    
#YouKnowMe: why women are sharing their abortion stories
We should certainly be compassionate and respectful to everyone - but that doesn't determine whether abortion itself is OK. We'll never *know* the terminated humans who could have been born, and they never had a *choice*; someone else decided to overrule their *bodily autonomy*. It baffles me the media are so keen to celebrate the destruction of tiny humans - we could be improving access to contraception and adoptive parents (since there are plenty who are specifically desperate for babies), instead, we're encouraging a procedure that's damaging to mental health https://www.cambridge.org/.../E8D556AAE1C1D2F0F8B060B28BE... and physically dangerous https://lifecharity.org.uk/.../ambulances-called-778.../
Emma Mad why do you think that you know what's going on in a stranger's mind? What's the point in ignoring what someone says, and accusing them of motivations for which you have no evidence? It suggests that you just don't want to consider a different opinion to your own, so all you can do is demonise those you disagree with whilst not addressing their points.
You don't give a shit about babies. You just want to judge people. Fuck you and your fake tears.
Why do you think that you know what's going on in a stranger's mind? What's the point in ignoring what someone says, and accusing them of motivations for which you have no evidence? It suggests that you just don't want to consider a different opinion to your own, so all you can do is demonise those you disagree with whilst not addressing their points.
Your argument rests on the assumption that all humans who exist wanted to be born, but we can never know because someone else "overruled their bodily autonomy" and made that decision for them. So in fact, the unborn have no rights to choose whether or not to exist, nor even the capacity to make such a choice. It is always a pregnant woman's decision. The ability to obtain an abortion simply ensures she actually has a choice.
By extension of your reasoning, anyone vulnerable could be killed on the basis that they might actually not want to be alive. Your reasoning would justify killing children, ill, disabled and elderly people who are only alive because other people are keeping them alive. And your argument rests on there being a significant likelihood that a person would regret being born - but only a tiny minority of people wish that they'd never been born, and on account of suffering things that they should receive support for. And why do "the unborn have no rights", when they're human as we are?
Other than in cases of rape, which account for just 1% of abortions, the woman has already made a choice.
You imagine dead babies and are baffled you can’t persuade everyone to join you? It’s a matter of consent. No one has to consent to imagine dead babies with you. Nor have feelings for any dead babies you imagine. It’s fairly clear.
I never used the phrase "dead babies" - but there are, indeed, dead human beings as a result of abortion - and you're honestly arguing that that's OK just because you want to put it out of your mind?
"Never know the terminated humans who were never born"? We are supposed to mourn these imaginary beings? If your parents had sex a day later you would have been an unborn human and another would have taken your place.
The campaign "YouKnowMe" is calling on us to have empathy for people that we don't know on the basis that they're human and that people we do know might be included in the group - unborn humans are also human beings, like those we know and love only younger, and yet abortion deems it OK to tear them limb from limb.
"Abortion rates are rising" In fact, the exact opposite is true. Abortion rates are at an all time low and that is mostly due to sex education and easier, cheaper access to more effective birth control options. If you start out with such an easily disprovable lie, there is no reason to listen to you at all.
I was referring to abortion having become more common since it was introduced. "Embryos and fetuses are humans the same way a chicken egg is meat" LOL, according to what biology textbook? Surely you're aware that living things begin when an egg is fertilised - thus no one argues that an unfertilised egg is a being, and once fertilised progresses through stages of development, which include foetus, child and adult? A foetus has it's own unique, complete genome, and, by 12 weeks, has all of its body parts and organs, as well as brain activity.
embryos are not humans... maybe focus on the actual humans, the women making these decisions from themselves ...is an egg a chicken? No. Is an acorn a tree? No.
Is the egg unfertilised, or does it contain a chick? A human embryo is not a human egg, it has its own full genome, and, within weeks, develops brain activity and flinches at pain. Personally, I wouldn't argue about abortions before brain activity, though they still suck - but plenty of abortions happen well beyond that point. Again, this isn't about judging the women, the issue is the normalisation of the procedure itself, which in fact leaves many women physically and emotionally scarred.
   
No, you sodding didn't. Preventing the destruction of a tiny human whose existence resulted from sex that happened by CHOICE is nothing like raping someone, and to equivocate them is a gross disrespect to rape victims.
  
Thomas Cook slumps to £1.5bn loss as 'Brexit hits holiday plans'
I'd really, really rather use the cost of flights to buy something permanent and fund essentials for those too poor to ever dream of any kind of holiday, than use £100s on a weeek away. We are so, so, so privileged - we live in a country with some of the highest average living standards, as well as a wide array of natural beauty and tourist attractions to enjoy during a staycation.
or you can enrich your own life on a budget break, and still fulfil your philanthropic needs.
Any given amount of money we have can only be spent once - money I spend on a holiday is gone after the week's trip and could have, but now can't be, spent on anything else. It's not at all necessary to go abroad to enrich life - it's only been commonplace for a few decades, and today we can learn about the rest of the world through endless films, documentaries, photography and more, from our literally comfortable homes, and also enjoy the outdoors when we choose to.
The average cost of a Briton's holiday could fund sponsorship of 2 children for the year, and still leave money left over for plenty of sightseeing here. Besides, if we want to stop our planet being destroyed by climate change, giving u flying is, by far, the most efficient means to do so.

    
Jameela Jamil opens up about having an abortion
It's a counterfactual, she can't know. Most people who feel unready to become mothers end up loving their child. And one might well say that they feel positively about something about which they feel inwardly ashamed or bereaved because they're desperate to convince the world - and themselves - that they're strong. But there is evidence to suggest that abortion negatively impacts womens' mental wellbeing. 
[Deleted Comment]
Of course it wasn't my decision, I'm just expressing an opinion, because that's what we all do here. I'd argue that abortion shouldn't be a decision that's available in the first place; a decision was already made, (other than in cases of rape, which are only 1% of abortions) and now, another human's body and life are at stake - and that human gets no say.
Apologies, I wrote "I'd argue", but I don't want to argue at all
   
Yup, that's pretty clear from the New Testament. Jesus offers eternal life (to anyone who'll follow Him, BTW, not only those from Christian backgrounds, in case that was unclear), so we'll put up with being mocked, esp. when it's nothing compared to what Christians in countries outside of the West are suffering. But we really, really need to make sure that it's Jesus' teaching and example that we're following, not tribalism leading to lack of compassion for others. If we become hateful, as some who call themselves Christians do, we deserved to be shunned. Jesus needs to be at the forefront of our minds, not political warfare.
  
Jesus genuinely did change everything, but most people ignore Him. Why is Vox so keen to write about one Christian when it never writes about Christ? (NB, I mean no disrespect to Rachel HS)
  
With all due respect - it is a non-sensical tradition. What do you reckon Jesus and His disciples were wearing during the original communion? Crucial to Christianity is that Jesus is Holy yet chose to be an entirely unglamorous human, and God loves each person immeasurably, not giving a toss about outward beauty. Communion symbolises Christ dying brutally to offer us eternal life - why over look the ultimate offer to focus on makeup and dresses?
   
With $38/month, you could sponsor a child, and completely transform their life and future - that's far, far, far more "hope", and fulfillment of hope, for your money.
  
It's remarkable how often people mock the entirety of "religion" as a fairytale without looking at the scientific and philosophical arguments for God.
Aside from that, it's pretty vile that people are laughing at the potential for this^ guy to be murdered - and if you think that there is no potential for it, you're very much unaware of the epidemic of persecution of Christians outside of the Western world. Did you not see the crowds of angry men in Pakistan screaming for Asia Bibi to be executed?
The same Asia Bibi who wasn't executed, was in fact acquitted and is fine and dandy in Canada?
Yes, after spending a decade on death row. My point is that scores of people in Pakistan genuinely wanted to murder her, and they did murder several of the officials who stood up for her. Have you ever read about other Christians who are imprisoned, firebombed and murdered around the world for their faith?
Arguments, whether scientific of philosophical, are not irrefutable evidence to support any religion as fact. You type of thinking is why this man could be killed if he is returned to Pakistan.
How do you define "irrefutable evidence" exactly? What "irrefutable evidence is there for the things that you do believe? What "irrefutable evidence" should there be for God that is definitively lacking such that you presume Him not to exist? Have you ever examined, for yourself, the scientific and philosophical arguments I'm referring to?
What about my "type of thinking is why this man could be killed"? All I've implied is that I believe that God exists - though as my profile makes evident, I also want to emulate Jesus - this^ man is at risk because of people trying to emulate Muhammed, who was entirely different (though, obviously, the majority of people who consider themselves Muslims would never dream of copying Muhammed's violence).
   
I'm really confused by this story - of course children should lose out because of their parents, and if children become genuinely malnourished it's outrageous - but seriously, what's wrong with sandwiches? I always had sandwiches at school (until I stopped having lunch as a teenager), and would have been grateful for them to have had jam (what you call jelly) in them. I'm seriously upset about the equally deserving children who are genuinely without food, not only limited in lunch options (or who have only rice to eat, since it's flavourless) - how often is there outcry about their suffering? It's amazing how many starving children we can help with each $ when we give to the world's poorest, yet most people just ignore them.
*Seriously, I'm not condoning the school being mean, I just don't understand the hysteria over this
   
Book a 2-night Disneyland Paris break for £329pp, including park tickets and Eurostar
You could sponsor a child for a year with that amount, and also have a great family day out Don't let Disney con you into thinking that kids need to go to Disneyland to be happy - I thought, as a kid, that I'd like to go, now I'm glad I didn't, I'd have been spoiled.